Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

exploring with princess, this time it's why daddy touching me feels so good hehe~ #nsfwtwt #nsfw #teenagegirls #petite #cnc #freeuse #ddlg #daddykink #dadasgirl #ageplay #agegap #ageretwt #young #daughterlove #daughterandfather #yay #darkfantasy #agedifference #sizekink #small

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

🧑🏻‍🦱: JossGawin Concert! I'm telling you, this is a concert where you just lose your mind. My brain literally went dead right during the song 'Bao Bao'… I mean girl, from the slow song, it wasn't soft for me at all. My brain completely shut down and stopped processing right then and there. I couldn't understand anything after that. Is this a pre-wedding shoot? Is this the perspective Joss sees Gawin from every single day? 🧑🏻‍🦱: Does he secretly take photos of him on his phone because it looks like this? Because the angle looks so good. Looking up at the screen, it's totally pre-wedding vibes like they're recording an anniversary video! Is this a concert for people who are already married? Or wait, they aren't married yet? Are they just boyfriends? Just partners? 🧑🏻‍🦱: They don't even have obvious fan-service moments. The whole concert, no holding hands, no kissing, no cheek-kisses, no touching cheeks, NONE! They barely touch each other at all, practically dodging every moment. BUT why does the vibe feel like a married couple? Hey! Why is the vibe subtly saying 'we're a couple', like they're going home to sleep in the same bed or something? Don't make me think... don't make me think... BUT I'M THINKING IT 🥹 🧑🏻‍🦱: As for the song choices, they just let Gawin choose whatever he wanted because Joss doesn't have the right to choose anyway. Joss spoils Gawin to the max! The show had such a high contrast. It was a roller coaster… up, down, up, down. Why is this concert like a wild train ride? But was it good? Yes, the three of them sang every song beautifully. 🧑🏻‍🦱: Right, how could it not be good? It's Gawin Caskey! I'm so happy for him. Finally, this is 'Your Time', this is his moment now. 🧑🏻‍🦱: See, and people call this 'not in love'? Anyone who doesn't understand this kind of vibe would be like, 'Why are there no skinship moments at all?' JossGawin is like you don't understand! It feels like a couple that's been together for a long time, not overly showy, not overly sweet. Try standing back and looking at their eyes... look at the emotional energy... look at each performance they present. You'll realize that THIS is what sweet means! This is already sweet! Super sweet! The vibe is totally there :((( 🧑🏻‍🦱: Joss was giving major "Daddy" energy today. The silver hair was so Daddy! And when Lego came out, Lego was so respectful but also danced so fiercely. But honestly, no matter how sexy Lego was, it couldn't beat the "side-eye" romantic tension between JossGawin 🤲🏻 Lego seemed so polite, during the performance, wow, so intense! But right after, the feeling was so polite, like an uncle and nephew chatting. #JossGawinConcert #JossGawin

BABY G’s Sparkling Wings ꒰ྀི১🪽🎀༘♔ ִֶָ🎸🎧ྀི ⋆。🍎

13,422 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

After a decade of building Broadlume and a year since joining forces with Cyncly, today is my last day. It's emotional, but it's the start of the next chapter. Here's the message I sent my team: I knew this day would eventually come, but now that it's here, it's surreal. As I wrote (and rewrote) this email a hundred times, it was hard not to get emotional. There's no way for me to properly put my thoughts into words… but here we go. There are so many people to thank and so many amazing memories. I am truly grateful for every single person who played a part in this 10+ year journey. For 10 years, I never had the Sunday Scaries or dreaded a single Monday.. not one. I woke up wanting to find out what problems we'd solve together and what milestones we'd celebrate. That feeling is what people spend entire careers searching for. And I got to live it for a decade, thanks to you. Every Monday morning felt like a reunion with friends, not work. I got to wake up and do what I loved, with people I loved working with. But beyond that, the work we did changed an industry. We fought for the small business owner, and that's something I'm incredibly proud of. Our work impacted 4,500 mom and pop flooring retailers across the country. They will forever operate differently because of us, and they'll continue to be taken care of by this incredible team long after I'm gone. We proved that when you take care of your team and treat customers like family, everyone wins. That's the legacy we built together, and one worth being proud of. Now, what comes next for me? I'm going to spend time with my family. Believe it or not, when you give your personal cell phone number out to the entire flooring industry, hours and days can slip away pretty quickly. I want to be present with my wife and two young daughters. My oldest daughter, Amelia, is two and a half, and her world runs on questions. Her favorite: "But why, Daddy?" And I can't wait for the day she asks, "but why did you name me Amelia?" And I'll get to tell her about FloorCon and how our final show was in Amelia Island, FL, right around the time she was born. My youngest, Charlotte, is just three months old. She doesn't know anything about flooring… yet. But I'm excited to explain to her why hardwood is better than LVP, and why she always needs to shop local. And lastly, my wife Jill has been the most patient, supportive, and understanding partner during this journey. I'm excited to just focus on being a dad, husband, and bad golfer for a bit. Working with you was the greatest honor of my professional life. The actual daily experience of being in the trenches, and doing the work together, is what I will always remember. Thank you for trusting me when I didn't know what I was doing. Thank you for following me into uncertainty. And thank you for making Monday, the best day. With love.

Todd Saunders

66,030 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

Most people scroll past suffering every single day and don't even notice. She didn't. And that one decision — made in less than three seconds, with zero hesitation, zero plan, zero audience — is why this video is currently wrecking people's timelines and making grown adults cry at their desks. I've been studying viral content for over a decade. I've watched thousands of videos get dissected, algorithm-tested, A/B'd to death by teams trying to "engineer" emotion. And every single time, the ones that actually break the internet have one thing in common: they weren't engineered at all. They just happened. This is one of those. You need to watch this one. Not read about it. Watch it. Because there's a specific moment in this video — you'll know it when you see it — where the entire emotional weight of the situation flips in half a second, and no description, no summary, no paragraph I write is going to do that moment justice. I'm not even going to try. What I am going to do is tell you why this matters, why it's spreading the way it is, and why — once you see it — you won't be able to stop thinking about it. Let's talk about what nobody talks about. There is an entire invisible war happening in every park, every lake, every pond, every quiet patch of "nature" tucked into our cities. It's silent. It doesn't trend. It doesn't get news coverage. Animals get hurt, get tangled, get trapped, get sick, get slowly, quietly destroyed by things we left behind — and 99.9% of the time, nobody is there to notice. Nobody is there to act. The animal just... disappears. No headline. No hashtag. No one ever knows. That's the baseline. That's what "normal" looks like for wildlife living next to humans. Quiet suffering, unwitnessed, unresolved. And then — every once in a while — someone walks into that invisible war by accident, on a normal day, wearing normal clothes, holding nothing but a phone and maybe a bag of bread, expecting absolutely nothing out of the ordinary. And something in them refuses to just keep walking. That's what you're watching here. Not a stunt. Not a "content piece." Not something built for the algorithm. A real, unscripted, completely human reflex — the kind that separates the people who notice from the people who don't, and then separates the people who notice from the tiny, tiny percentage who actually do something about it. Here's the thing that gets me every time I rewatch this. It's not the rescue itself that hits hardest. It's the speed. There is no internal debate happening on screen. There's no "should I get involved," no calling someone else to handle it, no filming from a distance for views. There's a problem, and then there's motion. That gap — the one between noticing and acting — is usually where 95% of us live our entire lives. We notice. We feel something. We keep walking. This video is what happens when that gap doesn't exist. I want you to sit with that for a second, because it's actually rare. Genuinely rare. Most "hero" content you see online has been staged, has been reshot, has a director just out of frame. This isn't that. You can feel it in the way things unfold — messy, urgent, real, imperfect in all the ways real moments are and staged moments never are. That authenticity is exactly why it's spreading the way it's spreading. People are starving for something real in a feed built entirely out of things that are fake. Now let's talk about the animal at the center of this, because most people underestimate exactly how much is at stake for a creature like this in a situation like this. Waterfowl — geese specifically — are tougher and more resilient than almost anyone gives them credit for. They migrate thousands of miles. They survive brutal winters. They defend their families with a ferocity that has made more than one grown adult sprint across a parking lot in fear. But that same toughness has a blind spot: when something goes wrong — when they get tangled, injured, caught in something man-made — they often have no way to fix it themselves. No hands. No way to cut, unwind, or remove whatever's constricting them. Just time, working against them, second by second, while the injury gets worse and the body starts shutting down blood flow to protect the rest of itself. Left alone, that kind of situation doesn't resolve. It doesn't "work itself out." It ends exactly one way, and it's not a good one. Which is why the window that matters here is so brutally small. Not days. Not hours in some cases. The margin between "this animal makes it" and "this animal doesn't" can come down to a single person, on a single day, choosing not to keep walking. That's the stakes you're watching play out. That's why your chest tightens the second you hit play. Your body understands the stakes before your brain even finishes processing what's happening on screen. And this is the part that I think explains why videos like this hit different than almost anything else on this platform. We are, all of us, walking around holding an enormous amount of helplessness we can't do anything with. The news. The scale of everything wrong in the world. Problems so big, so systemic, so far outside any single person's control that we've collectively learned to just... go numb. Scroll past. Compartmentalize. It's a survival mechanism. You cannot feel the full weight of everything, all the time, or you'd never get out of bed. But every so often, something shows up in your feed that's the exact opposite of that. A problem small enough — specific enough — local enough — that one single, ordinary, non-famous, non-wealthy, non-powerful person can just... solve it. With their hands. In real time. No committee. No funding request. No permission slip. Just a person deciding that this particular piece of suffering, right here, right now, is not going to continue on their watch. That is enormously, viscerally satisfying to witness. It's satisfying in a way that almost nothing else in your feed is, because it's proof — actual, undeniable, on-camera proof — that individual action still means something. That you, one person, with no special resources, could be the difference between an animal living and an animal not living. That agency still exists. That the world isn't only made of problems too big for any of us. That's not a small thing to be reminded of. That's actually one of the most quietly desperate things people are craving right now, whether they'd admit it or not. Now here's where it gets even more interesting, because this isn't just an emotional story — this is a legitimately fascinating one if you understand what's actually happening biologically and behaviorally in the footage. Watch how the surrounding flock reacts. Watch what the rest of the group does, and doesn't do, while all of this unfolds. Geese are famously social, famously alert, famously reactive to any perceived threat near one of their own — and yet what you'll see here defies the instinct you'd expect. There's a reason for that, rooted in how these animals actually assess threat versus help, and once you notice it, you won't be able to unsee it in the rest of the clip. I'm not going to spell it out for you. Watch for it. It's there, right in front of you, and it's one of the most quietly remarkable details in the entire video — the kind of detail that separates people who watch it once from people who watch it five times in a row trying to catch everything they missed. Then there's the ending. I will tell you this much and nothing more: the ending is the reason this is getting saved, not just liked. Saved. Sent to group chats. Sent to people's moms. Sent with the caption "I'm not crying, you're crying." There is a specific final few seconds that recontextualizes literally everything that came before it — turns what could have been a simple "good deed" clip into something that feels closer to a small, perfect short film. A beginning, a crisis, an intervention, and a resolution that actually lands, emotionally, in a way most content never manages to pull off in fifteen seconds or two minutes or however long you end up watching it for. I've watched a lot of "feel-good animal content." Most of it is forgettable. Cute, sure. A dopamine hit, sure. Gone from your memory in ten minutes. This is not that. This is the rare kind that actually sits with you — that you think about later that night, or the next morning, for reasons you can't fully articulate. That's the difference between content and a moment. This is a moment. Let's talk for a second about who does this. Because I think that matters too. There's a version of this story where the "hero" is a trained wildlife rescuer, someone with credentials, equipment, years of experience, a whole organizational apparatus behind them. That story is good. It's reassuring in its own way — proof that the system works, that there are professionals out there handling things. This is not that story. This is an ordinary person. Someone who woke up that day with no plan to become anyone's hero. No training montage. No wildlife rescue license. Just a person who happened to be in the right place, who happened to actually look — really look — instead of glancing and moving on, and who happened to have whatever internal wiring makes some people act instead of hesitate. That distinction matters enormously, because it collapses the distance between "the kind of person who does something like this" and you. It's not a superhero story. It's a "this could have been literally anyone, including me" story. And the honest, slightly uncomfortable truth buried inside that realization is: most of us, most days, would have kept walking. We'd have felt a flicker of concern, maybe taken a photo, maybe felt vaguely bad about it for the rest of the afternoon, and then moved on with our lives, because that's simply what most people do, most of the time, when they're not forced to reckon with an alternative right in front of them. This video is that alternative, playing out in real time, and it's impossible to watch without quietly asking yourself which version of a person you actually are. I don't think that's a comfortable question. I think that's exactly why people can't stop sharing it. Now — a word on why this specific footage works so well from a pure craft standpoint, because even setting aside the emotional weight, there's something happening here structurally that most creators spend years trying to figure out and never quite land. Great short-form video has a shape. Setup. Escalation. Turn. Payoff. Most people who try to make "emotional" content front-load everything — they tell you how to feel before you've felt anything, they oversell, they manipulate obviously, and audiences today can smell that from a mile away and bounce immediately. What makes a clip like this different is that it doesn't ask you to feel anything. It just shows you a sequence of real events, unfolding in real time, and trusts you — correctly — to arrive at the emotion yourself. That trust is rare. That restraint is rare. And it's exactly why, when the turn comes, it hits as hard as it does. Nobody told you it was going to. You got there on your own, which means you actually feel it, instead of being told you should. That's not something you can fake with editing tricks or a trending sound. That's something that only happens when the moment itself is genuinely, unmistakably real. I also want to talk about scale for a second, because I think it's easy to miss how much bigger this issue is than one video, one goose, one lake, one afternoon. Every single day, in cities all over the world, urban wildlife is quietly colliding with human infrastructure in ways most of us never think about. Fishing line nobody bothered to clean up. Litter that looks harmless to us and is a death trap to something smaller, more fragile, more entangled in its environment than we are. Storm drains. Discarded packaging. The debris of a species — us — that moves through the world without much thought for what we leave behind. Most of the time, none of us see the consequences. The animals affected by it don't post about it. They don't trend. They just quietly don't make it, somewhere out of frame, and life goes on for the rest of us completely unaware that anything happened at all. This video is a rare, accidental window into that entire hidden layer of reality — the one that exists parallel to ours, constantly, that we almost never get to actually witness. And for a few minutes, thanks to one person's phone and one person's reflexes, we get to see it, and we get to see it resolved the right way instead of the way it usually resolves when nobody's there. That's not nothing. That's actually kind of extraordinary when you sit with it. Here's a question worth asking yourself honestly, and I want you to actually answer it, not just skim past it: when was the last time you personally stopped — actually stopped, changed your plans, got your hands dirty, inconvenienced yourself in some real way — for a creature that couldn't thank you, couldn't pay you back, couldn't do anything for you in return except exist a little longer because you showed up? If your honest answer is "I can't remember," you're not alone. Most people can't. That's not a moral failing, exactly — it's just how modern life is structured. We're busy. We're distracted. We're moving fast between obligations that already feel like too much. Stopping for something that asks nothing of us and offers nothing back except the fact of having helped is, increasingly, a rare kind of choice. Which is exactly why watching someone else make that choice, cleanly, instinctively, without hesitation, feels almost like watching a small miracle. Not because it's supernatural. Because it's so uncommon in practice, even though in theory it's the simplest, most obviously "right" thing a person could do. I'll say this plainly: I've built accounts to millions of followers. I've seen what actually spreads versus what merely performs well for a day and disappears. The stuff that performs well for a day is clever. It's well-edited. It rides a trend. The stuff that actually spreads — that gets forwarded person to person, week after week, long after the algorithm has moved on to the next thing — is always, always this. Real stakes. Real people. A real moment where something could have gone one of two ways, and it went the better way, because someone decided it would. You're looking at one of those right now. So here's my actual advice, and I don't give this kind of direct instruction often: don't read a recap of this. Don't let someone else's summary substitute for the thing itself. There is a version of this moment happening on your screen, right now, in full, unedited by anyone's words including mine — and it is genuinely, unambiguously worth the two minutes of your life it will cost you. You will see the moment where everything is uncertain. You will see the moment where a decision gets made in real time, with real risk of it not working. You will see the moment where you don't know, and neither did anyone there in that moment, how this was going to end. And then you will see how it actually ended. I'm not going to tell you what that ending looks like. I'm telling you that when you get there, you'll understand exactly why this is the video everyone's been sending to everyone else this week, why it's sitting in a hundred thousand people's "saved" folders, why comment sections under it are full of people saying some version of the same three words over and over. Hit play. You'll get it in the first ten seconds, and you won't regret the two minutes after that. One more thing before you go watch it, because I think it's actually the most important part of all of this, and it's the part that gets lost in every "feel-good video" cycle the internet runs on: the feeling this video gives you — that lump in your throat, that little surge of hope, that reminder that individual action still matters — that feeling is not supposed to be a one-time hit you get from watching someone else do something good and then close the app and move on with your day unchanged. That feeling is supposed to be a signal. A nudge. Evidence, presented to you directly, that the gap between noticing and acting is smaller than you think, and that crossing it is available to you too, the next time you're the one standing there, noticing something that most people would just walk past. You don't need a license. You don't need training. You don't need permission, or an audience, or a camera rolling, or anyone to ever find out you did it at all. You just need to be the kind of person who doesn't keep walking. This video is proof that person exists. Go watch it, and then decide if you're going to be one too. Sound on. Full screen. Watch it to the very end — the last few seconds are the whole reason this is everywhere right now, and no summary, no recap, no paragraph anyone writes about it is a substitute for actually seeing it happen with your own eyes. This is what it looks like when someone chooses not to look away. Now you choose. Let me go a little deeper, because I don't think most people actually understand why their own reaction to this footage is so strong, and I think understanding it makes the video hit even harder the second time around. Psychologists have a name for what you're feeling right now if you've already watched this once. It's sometimes called "moral elevation" — a very specific, very physical response that happens when you witness an act of unexpected goodness. Not just any positive emotion. A distinct one. Your chest can feel warm. Your throat can tighten. Some people report actual chills. It's not the same thing as happiness, and it's not the same thing as being impressed. It's your nervous system responding to proof that people are better than you'd started to assume they were. And here's the part that matters: that response isn't random, and it isn't rare because it's hard to trigger. It's rare because most of what we consume all day is engineered to trigger the opposite — outrage, comparison, anxiety, fear of missing out. Feeds are optimized for reaction, not elevation, because outrage is cheap to produce and elevation isn't. You can't fake this feeling with a clever caption. You can't manufacture it with a trending sound or a plot twist. It only happens when something real, something with actual stakes, resolves in a way that reminds you decency still exists in the wild, unscripted, unpaid, unrewarded. That's why this spreads the way outrage spreads, except it leaves you feeling the opposite of drained afterward. Outrage burns you out. Elevation refuels you. People aren't just sharing this because it's touching — they're sharing it because, for the length of one short video, it makes them feel like being a decent person is still worth it. That's an incredibly rare thing for any piece of content to do, and it's exactly why you're seeing it everywhere this week. Let's talk about the setting for a second too, because I think it's easy to overlook how much it matters that this didn't happen somewhere remote, somewhere wild, somewhere far from ordinary life. This happened in the kind of place you've walked past a thousand times without thinking twice. A park. A pond. The kind of unremarkable, background scenery that exists in almost every neighborhood, that most of us jog past, walk our dogs past, eat lunch near, without ever really looking at it as a place where anything could actually happen. That's exactly the point. The ordinary backdrop is what makes the extraordinary moment inside it land so hard. This isn't some far-off nature documentary shot by a professional crew with a permit and a budget. This is five minutes from somebody's house. This is the kind of place that exists five minutes from your house too. Which means the opportunity this video captures — the chance to notice, to stop, to help — isn't some rare alignment of stars that only happens once in a lifetime, in some exotic location, to some uniquely positioned person. It's sitting there, quietly, in ordinary places, all the time, waiting for someone to actually look. Most days, nobody does. This is what it looks like on the rare day when somebody finally does. I keep coming back to that idea because I think it's the actual core of why this resonates so widely, across ages, across backgrounds, across every single kind of person who ends up watching it. It's not really a story about a goose. It's a story about attention — about what happens in the tiny, easily ignored moment when you notice something is wrong, and what you do with that noticing. Everything else — the outcome, the emotion, the ending that's got everyone talking — flows directly out of that one, incredibly small, incredibly human decision. And if I'm honest, that's what makes content like this so much more valuable than almost anything else competing for your attention today. It doesn't sell you anything. It doesn't want you to buy a product, follow a brand, join a movement, or believe a particular opinion about a particular issue. It just quietly asks you to notice something you might otherwise have scrolled past, the same way the person in this video almost could have too, and didn't. A few things people keep asking in the comments under this video, worth addressing directly: Was this real, or staged? Watch closely and you'll answer that question yourself within the first several seconds — nothing about the pacing, the urgency, or the imperfection of how it unfolds reads like something blocked out in advance. Staged content has a rhythm to it. This doesn't have that rhythm. It has the rhythm of something happening for the first and only time, exactly once, exactly as it happened. Was the animal okay afterward? That's exactly the question this video answers — and it's the reason the final stretch of footage matters so much. I won't spoil it. I'll just say: pay close attention to the very end, because that's the payoff the entire rest of the video has been building toward, whether you consciously noticed the build or not. Why does a video like this get more engagement than videos with way bigger production value, bigger creators, bigger budgets behind them? Because production value has never been what actually moves people. Truth does. A shaky, imperfect, unscripted two minutes of someone doing the right thing at the right moment will outperform a polished, professionally shot piece of content nine times out of ten, because audiences aren't actually asking to be impressed. They're asking to be moved. Those are two very different things, and only one of them is genuinely rare. Here's something else worth sitting with. Somewhere, right now, there's a version of this exact situation playing out with no witness at all. No phone rolling. No person who happens to notice. No intervention. It's happening constantly, everywhere, completely unrecorded, completely unremarked upon, because most of the time, nobody's there, or the person who's there keeps walking. This video isn't rare because the situation itself is rare. The situation is common — heartbreakingly, quietly common. What's rare is the outcome. What's rare is someone actually being there, actually noticing, actually choosing to act, and someone else actually catching it on camera so the rest of us get to witness what usually happens completely out of view. That's the real reason this deserves your two minutes more than almost anything else you'll see in your feed today. Not because it's rare that an animal needed help. Because it's rare that help actually showed up in time, and rarer still that any of us get to see it. So go watch it. Not the summary. Not somebody's recap in the replies. The actual footage, start to finish, full screen, sound on. Let the moment build the way it's supposed to build. Let yourself not know how it ends until it ends. That uncertainty — that genuine not-knowing — is exactly what makes the resolution land the way it's supposed to land. And when you get to the end, and you feel whatever you're about to feel, do one more thing: send it to somebody. Not because it needs the views. Because somebody in your life probably needs the reminder, just as much as you did, that this is still what people are capable of when nobody's asking them to be. That's the whole point. That's why it's everywhere. That's why you should watch it right now, before you scroll past one more thing today without actually seeing it. #AnimalRescue #WildlifeRescue #GooseRescue #AnimalsOfTwitter #RescueStory #ActOfKindness #HumanityRestored #WildlifeConservation #UrbanWildlife #ViralVideo #EmotionalStory #DoGood #AnimalLovers #NatureRescue #HeroesAmongUs #WeLoveAnimals #RescueMission #CompassionInAction #FaithInHumanity #WatchTillTheEnd

Earth Unveiled

37,357 görüntüleme • 11 gün önce

🐤🦚: We are Super Junior 🐤: I’m Leeteuk 🦚: And I’m the maknae, Kim Heechul Host: Welcome! Super Junior has so many members, so is there a particular reason why it’s just the two of you appearing today as the “Golden Hands”? 🦚: We recently debuted as a Super Junior unit called 83z Since we’re both born in 1983, we’re exactly the same age 🐤: That’s right Because we have great chemistry and understand each other so well, we also released a new song titled Promise Host: What kind of song is Promise? 🐤: It’s a song that encourages and supports young people Since it carries a warm and uplifting message, how about we sing a short part of it? Host: Oh, that would be wonderful! Host: Ah, it’s so gentle and touching Host: Yes, it’s beautiful We also heard that you and the Super Junior members have continued doing charitable work, such as making donations for wildfire relief and supporting students affected by school violence 🦚: Yes We’ve been receiving so much love from our ELF fans and our viewers for over 20 years, so we wanted to give back, even if only a little, through good deeds That’s why we’ve continued doing them 🐤: In addition, our fans are incredibly sincere when it comes to charity They always share the same values as us and help spread positive influence We’re always grateful to them, and we’re proud to have such supportive fans Host: That’s wonderful Thank you But Heechul, isn’t your philosophy when it comes to doing good deeds, “Don’t let your left hand know what your right hand is doing”? 🦚: Yes I’m actually a little allergic to being praised Haha I used to do good deeds quietly without telling anyone But then nobody really knew about them, and I got curious! Since good deeds are even better when everyone does them together, we now share them with our fans and jokingly say, “Please praise me a little” Host: I see Earlier, you sang a part of your new song Promise Could you make a small promise to our viewers today? 🐤: I believe that the more you give and share with others, the more it eventually comes back to you So today, I’d like to make a simple promise to our viewers We’ll continue sharing warmth with those around us, just as much as the love we’ve received I’m certain that when all these kind hearts come together and keep spreading, even greater blessings will return to all of us Host: Those are wonderful words Thank you The current time is 8:38:11 PM Host: We’ll begin the lottery draw now Please press the “Golden Hands” button 🦚: Luck grows even bigger when it’s shared! 🐤: A promise for all of us Please join us in sharing this warmth

らがど||🐤

19,140 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

minghao v8 hong kong d2 ment 🎱 hi i'm xu minghao the8! why does it feel so hot today! [carats asking him to take it off] 🎱 i shouldn't have mentioned this word, i shouldn't have said i am hot, right. i won't take it off today. a different feeling today. is it really that much of a pity? sigh... really. friends in the back, friends over here, friends in the front. oh the friends in the front are very loud, friends on the right! friends on the left! friends in the middle! very good, very good. how is your condition today? not bad? are you tired? not tired? then in a little while there is still a segment where we will jump together. is there anyone whose legs and feet are not feeling very comfortable? there are a few people raising their hands here. then what should we do? next time when you come to this kind of live house performance, make sure you wear something comfortable. and as always, you must pay attention to safety. okay? the front is still okay, but these two sides feel a bit crowded. be a little careful, and if you feel uncomfortable, let the staff at the front know. you must take good care of yourselves, okay? how was the stage just now? i feel like you guys would just say 'good' hehe. feels like everyone's state today is a little... [carats asking him to take it off] 🎱 i say one more word and suddenly it becomes two words 'take it off'. tell me, what are you all thinking about in your heads? but as long as you're happy. are you happy now? since you're happy, then i won't take it off. then let's continue chatting about the stage just now. the first song, my solo song 'awake', was specially for this show. it was written earlier, around february this year? around february. because of the arrangement of this song, i think it is especially suitable for a live performance, including all the lights and lasers. i don't know if everyone felt it. did you? maybe the friends in the back could see it more clearly, right? then '8dm'. the mv for '8dm' also came out a few days ago. have you all watched it? almost everyone has watched it. if you haven't watched it yet, you can go back and enjoy it. this album has a lot of chinese lyrics. if there are songs like that later, please sing along together, okay? because every time i'm on stage and i see you singing along and jumping together, i really feel very, very happy and very blessed. do you feel the same? it just feels like you all look like children. although there may be gege and jiejie who are older than me, i really feel that when i am on stage and you are in the audience, enjoying that moment, you all are just like children. so i really feel this kind of energy is especially pure. so for me, i think this kind of performance is the purest way for us to interact with each other. and i'm human too, right? it's impossible.. keep listening. my energy can't always be very high, but sometimes on stage, although you usually can't tell when my energy is a little low, some people can. but as long as i see you enjoying our time together so much, my energy is immediately recharged. so actually, when i am on stage, i rely on you all a lot. so to me, this kind of pure interaction is really about relying on each other, encouraging each other, and accompanying each other. i think it is really a very lucky thing. just now.. not just now. there's a lyric in 'girlsnboys': "time has taken the boy/youth away." actually, these past two years i suddenly feel like i've had to handle many things like an adult, even though i already am an adult. adults are talking about serious matters, don't call 'baobao' (baby). i just feel that at some point, suddenly, oh.. how have i really become like an adult, handling so many things i had never dealt with before. before, maybe just being an artiste was enough. but maybe because there are many things i want to do, and many things go beyond the scope of being an artiste, i need to handle a lot of things. so actually, that lyric expresses a kind of feeling.

𝗝𝗢.

11,246 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Analyzing Trailer 2, S2, Uzak Sehir Ah be. It feels good to be proven right sometimes, because frankly, at times it felt like I was making shit up from thin air - but I wasn't. There was a method to my madness (Thank God, I'm not ready for the straitjacket just yet). If you haven't read my analysis for ep 9, it'ks okay. It's attached below for your reading convenience because it's straight up tied to this beautiful scene in the latest trailer. The best thing that stood out to me at first glance, is that CihAl are still very much themselves. Yes, they've confessed and kissed, but they're still working through their issues. Yes, they're determined to fight for their love, but they're still also fighting their demons. Their awkwardness (when they're alone) is emphasized, because now they're going to learn each other as lovers. And, we get to watch that too (lucky us). Another plus point is they're still amazingly frank with each other. Cihan tells her 'If only touching you wasn't so difficult ' and Alya lovingly responds with 'When has anything been easy for us?' That tells us these folks are on the same wavelength to an undeniable degree. They've clearly had a heart-to-heart and understand where they stand. More importantly, they accept each other as they are, and that should tell you how mature their feelings are already. And then Alya tells him about how she had her own version of the infamous 'Beş saniye.' Obviously, she's trying to say the something sparked to life when she saw Cihan the first time. No, not like that you maniacs. Get your minds out of the gutter. She means the spark of recognition, of two hearts and souls recognizing each other. Like Bronte says, "Whatever our souls are made of, his and mine are the same." They see each and come to life, even though the circumstances are less than ideal. But, that's the thing about CihAl isn't it. It's not an ordinary love story. It's a tale about love beating impossible odds to be realized in the most beautiful way. And, it's also Alya's way (her gentle and loving way) of putting Cihan at ease. For a man who has been deprived of care and love for most of his life, Alya is the soothing balm to his wounds, it's no wonder the man fell in love with her. Wouldn't you love your salvation? Anyone who tries to twist into something disgusting and says stupid shit like 'bu ne rezillik' needs their creepy heads examined. Anyhoo, moving on, and this is my absolute favorite part, because its a direct throwback to the MAJOR foreshadowing in episode 9. Cihan says, 'The road we took wasn't easy, but despite it all we made good progress.' And what does Alya say? She says, 'But we still have a way to go.' This is directly linked to the song that plays in episode 9 when they're flying a kite. In my opinion, it's the writer's way of saying 'Don't worry, I've got this. These two will do just fine.' And here's why. The following is what I wrote in my analysis of episode 9: "...In ep 9, when Kaya's arrested for shooting whatsisname to save Zerrin, you can see Alya making an effort to help Cihan out...You can see Cihan not only accepting Alya's support and sharing his burdens with her, but you can also see Alya empathizing with Cihan. And that theme continues throughout the episode. When Alya overhears Demir's evil scheme to buy Sahin's home to cause trouble for Cihan, she promptly calls Cihan to warn him. In a way, ep 8 and 9 serve to break the cycle of blame CihAl are stuck in and replace that with understanding and connection. It's no wonder then that we get to see the kite flying scene on the roof with Alya, Cihan, and Deniz, where all three actually look like a real family for the first time. The song that plays in the background is 'Daha Gidecek Yolumuz Var.' And the lyrics? This is what the verse that plays during that scene translates to: Beneath the weeping willow’s shade, Let it be you and I, meeting at last. Take my body, take my soul — Let this weary spirit finally be free. Take all I am, every trace of me — So that this soul might know peace. We have so far still to go, my beautiful beloved. The road stretches on before us. So far still to walk, hand in hand — The path isn’t done yet. Many don't see ep 9 for what it is. It's a major milestone for CihAl and the foundation for their love story..." In my opinion, CihAl have a beautiful journey ahead, with a beautiful ending. Not any of that 'tragic end' weirdness, because their story from the beginning has been about overcoming obstacles. About not just realizing an impossible love, but also living it to it's full extent. And it's for that reason, we're remined of 'We have so far still to go, my beautiful beloved. The road stretches on before us. So far still to walk, hand in hand.' Hand in hand being the operative words. The best part is, Cihal's journey together is just beginning. And on that note, here's to the happiest of endings. Till next time, happy reading people! #CihAl #UzakŞehir

CocoLoco

23,098 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Gunil says the foundation of being a good leader is genuinely loving your teammates 🥹🩷 🐹 "Leader" is such a cool word, if you think about it. Ever since I was young, I've always been someone who liked taking the lead. For example, in high school or college, whenever we had group projects, I liked being the group leader. At church too, if there was a small group, I liked leading it. 🐹 So when I became Xdinary Heroes' leader, I honestly thought I'd do a good job. But during the first three years after our debut, I was really lost. "What kind of leader should I be? Am I even qualified to be a leader? Maybe I'm just not someone who's naturally meant to lead." 🐹 I realized how many shortcomings I had, and I broke down over it many times. But now, after going through so many things together with the younger members... Arguing and clashing over different opinions, and then finding ways to reconcile and come back together, I think I've finally come to understand something. 🐹 Being a leader isn't about leading the team exactly the way I want. Of course, I don't think there's one correct definition of a good leader, but I believe the foundation has to be genuinely loving your teammates. Because a team exists to accomplish a certain goal, right? If you focus only on achieving that goal and stop focusing on the people on the team, it starts to feel like something is missing. Like one screw has come loose. 🐹 And I also think a leader is someone who takes responsibility for everything. For example, if there's conflict between team members, or if someone goes through something difficult, or if one of my teammates has a problem, it might not be something I caused, or it might feel like it has nothing to do with me. But as long as I'm the leader of this team, if something happens to one of my members, I believe there was at least one percent of something I could have done. 🐹 That's why I think a good leader is someone who always feels responsible for what happens to their teammates or someone who never runs away from that responsibility. Honestly, I could talk about what "leader" means to me for a very long time. But I'll stop here for now and move on

ten

15,803 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

New's Full Interview with Vogue: #Newwiee #VogueTHJune2026 #PrideMonth 🐻‍❄Hello Vogue Thailand.. This is New thitipoom 💬The boy's love phenomenon 🐻‍❄Ever since I was young — well, actually, ever since I first started working — I think I've always taken every opportunity that came my way. If an opportunity was given to me, I'd do it no matter what it was. At that time, it was kind of a transitional period.Before that, I worked as an MC. Then, as things shifted toward digital broadcasting, the company also changed its focus toward producing series. By chance, I ended up appearing in one of those series. Back then, I played a friend's friend — a role that was almost like an extra. My part in the script was really small. The only thing written about the character was: "These two are secretly dating." That was literally the entire setting. But when the show aired, it unexpectedly became a huge hit. After seeing that, P'Tha created a separate story just for us (For tay and new). So if you ask whether that was the moment I decided on this path... I did decide that I wanted to continue acting and doing projects. But I never thought, "Oh, this is BL, should I do it?". I didn't really have that kind of concern. At the time, I was taking on every kind of role and every kind of job that came to me, without limiting the possibilities. 💬Life after boy's love series 🐻‍❄In terms of work? I think it's closer to the quantity of projects and activities I've done. It's about being able to say, 'Oh, I've tried this kind of work too,' and continuously building up experience. By taking one step forward at a time like that, new experiences will naturally keep filling in along the way. Right now, I feel like I'm still only at one point in the journey. There are still far more things I haven't tried and areas I haven't challenged myself in yet. It's not that I have some grand ambition or huge goal. It's more about practical thoughts like: 'How can I manage my time more efficiently in the future?' 'Oh, I'm going to have to do this and that next, so I should prepare in advance.' It's closer to that kind of thinking. 💬What equality issues need more attention in thailand ? 🐻‍❄ One thing I've realized while working in the entertainment industry is this: People often talk about the image of the entertainment industry. At the end of the day, it is an entertainment business, but I think it can also be compared to a brand. If a brand chooses us as PR representatives or brand presenters, it's because they want us to represent and promote that brand. However, I feel that our country still doesn't make enough use of the entertainment industry to promote the nation itself. Using entertainment as a promotional tool is one of the most effective forms of PR. Even ordinary commercial brands hire actors and celebrities to advertise and represent them. But it seems that our country still doesn't pay much attention to this area. I don't understand why there isn't more effort put into developing the entertainment industry. From what I see these days, it feels like we're either standing still or progressing very slowly. When I think about it, if there were more support available... in various aspects... I'm not entirely sure where that support should come from because I haven't studied the issue in that much detail. But I do wonder why this industry develops so slowly, why it hasn't been able to grow further or make a bigger leap forward. If there were more support—whether in terms of filming locations, legal matters, or other areas...wouldn't the industry be able to develop much faster? It would attract more attention from around the world as well. And when you look at Thailand itself as a brand, I think it would become a great opportunity to introduce Thailand to a much wider audience.

Dimple ~ 🐶✈️

12,156 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

This is why *ALL VACCINES* are WORTHLESS POISONS (1/4) Former Pfizer VP Michael Yeadon: "If you [inject] tiny doses of foreign protein into a person separated by two weeks, they become violently and permanently allergic to that substance." "These diabolical people have included components in [all] jabs that your children have been given and you may have received [so they] sensitize you to every single basic food item." Former Pfizer VP Michael Yeadon describes during an interview with Oracle Films posted to Rumble on July 3, 2025 research conducted by retired pharma R&D executive Sasha Latypova (sashalatypova.substack.com "Due Diligence and Art") and writer and paralegal Katherine Watt that reveals why **all "vaccines"** are nothing more than poisons. As it turns out, "vaccines" do exactly the opposite of what it's claimed they do—instead of preparing one's immune system to fight off a specific pathogen, they sensitize a person to whatever's been injected, priming them to have an anaphylactic reaction if they have a subsequent encounter with the injected material. Even if the injected material is normally benign—e.g., whey protein or peanut oil. Hence the explosion of food allergies following the subsequent explosion in the childhood "vaccination" schedule. "I think it was Charles Richet, something like that, [in] 1902, 1905, [who was] given a Nobel Prize for discovery of this mechanism," Yeadon says. "If you give tiny doses of foreign protein into a person separated by two weeks, they become violently and permanently allergic to that substance. Even if you touch it on the skin or put it just in your mouth, on your tongue, or certainly if you eat it, you've got a worse than even chance of having an allergic response to it." ----------------Partial transcription of clip-------------- "I will credit the terrific work of two Americans, Sasha Latypova. L-a-t-y-p-o-v-a, Sasha Latypova. Like me, a retired pharma executive. She worked in development. I was in research, and a legal scholar called Katherine, with a K, Watt, Katherine Watt. W-a-t-t. They write on substack. They have uncovered the fact that vaccines have never been intended to reduce diseases or to help you. They have always been what I have determined the COVID shots to be, which is materials that harm you and do you no good. "And of course, that's so horrifying that you think, oh, my word. All of them. Yep, all of them. I'm not saying they're all as dangerous as Covid jabs, but none of them were good. And, rather than trusting me, go and read the work of Sasha Latypova and Katherine Watt, and then it's up to you to decide. Okay? If you think that's wrong, that's fine. But one thing Sasha and others discovered, and they shared it with me before they even published it, and as soon as they told me, I knew it was right. "Can you remember a time, those of you who are over 60. I'm nearly 65. Can you remember a time when you were young when very few people were allergic to peanuts and very few people were allergic to anything? You probably can, can't you? Older folk like me. What we discovered is that if you inject a person with a foreign protein, like peanut oil, if you inject a person with tiny doses of that, especially if you do it two or three times, that person becomes fiercely allergic for life to peanuts. "Imagine if you were to inject a whey protein, from milk in a tiny dose, so small you probably wouldn't even notice it on the ingredients list. And if you injected that into your child a couple of times when they grew up, they might end up not all of them, but many of them will grow up allergic to milk and milk products and anything that's got whey protein in it. Imagine if they injected you with, a beef protein that came from plasma, for example. You often see that in products. A tiny dose, a really tiny dose, so small it'll be off the bottom of the ingredients list, and you injected that person twice with it. They'll become intolerant to meat. Unfortunately, that is all true. "All of those ingredients have been found in at least one of the vaccines on the vaccine schedule in America, and they're pretty much global products. These diabolical people have included components in the jabs that your children have been given and you may have received that were designed to sensitize you to every single basic food item. You know, to wheat, to corn, to beef, to chicken, to milk. That's why the number of, I think like one in three people has some kind of allergy. It's like they didn't when I was young, they didn't. "Sasha Latypova was born in USSR, and as she said in her fruity Russian, she said, when I was young, no one had allergies. When she came to America, I think in the 80s, it was like, what gives? And so she was probably perfectly poised to spot this. And so she discovered this. And, she noticed that a scientist called, I think it was Charles Richet, something like that, 1902, 1905, given a Nobel Prize for discovery of this mechanism. If you give tiny doses of foreign protein into a person separated by two weeks, they become violently and permanently allergic to that substance. Even if you touch it on the skin or put it just in your mouth, on your tongue, or certainly if you eat it, you've got a worse than even chance of having an allergic response to it. "These people have sensitized you. Those of you who've been vaccinated to large amounts of the natural environment. I mean, how diabolical is that? And it's exactly the same mechanism. As I called out in 2020 about the COVID jabs, remember I said that if you ask the human body to make, a protein that doesn't belong in you, non self protein, a so called spike protein, wherever it came from, I said if you do that, it will make you, your body will cause an autoimmune reaction or your body will then make foreign material. Your immune system will say, what the hell is that? Will attack it. So it's like a failed organ transplant. It's autoimmunity. That's what has happened through the whole history of vaccination back from the late 1700s to the present day."

Sense Receptor

179,144 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Labour's Bev Craig is the new Mayor for Greater Manchester Bev Craig - good luck! "I never believed as a girl growing up in a council estate that one day I would have the chance to stand for the place that I love, the place in this world that I'm proud to call home, and to offer my service to make our city region better." "Because Greater Manchester is special. We talk a lot about our history. We talk about the role that we've played from the birth of the Industrial Revolution to the trade union movement and Peterloo. From the suffragettes through to modern inventions and splitting the atom and the invention of the modern computer." "We've changed the world in many ways in the past, but Greater Manchester's potential lies in its future. And when Westminster walked away from us, when we were struggling as a deindustrialized city region, it was the people in this place that began the journey to rebuild." "And people often ask me, what is it that I feel makes Greater Manchester so special? And it's our people and our communities. And during this campaign, I've got to see that firsthand in every single corner of this city region." "In every pride, village, town, and both our cities, I find fantastic people doing incredible things against the odds every single day. Rejecting the politics of hate, but standing with their neighbors, looking out for each other." "The spirit of a place that their neighbors will give their final pound in their pocket to help their struggling friend do the right thing. But for too many people across our region, life is simply too hard. The generational belief that we had that if you work hard and you did the right thing, then your life would be better, and the life of your kids would be better, is something that many people just don't feel at the minute." "And that is the challenge that we in politics have to face up to. And it's why I set myself a simple test, and I make that commitment to you today, that every single decision I take as your mayor of Greater Manchester will pass the test of making your life better." "It will put more money in your pocket, and that was one of the reasons that my first pledge was around free buses for eleven to eighteen year olds to put five hundred quid in the pockets of families and give a message to our young people that they could be anything they wanted to be and go anywhere they wanted to go." "That everyone in our city region deserves a good quality home that they can afford in a safe neighborhood, and that everyone has to feel the benefits and successes of growth. You have to feel it in your pocket with good jobs in every corner of our city region, and you've got to see it on your high streets and when you walk out your front door, restoring pride into our, our high streets and town centers." "But it can't just be about building the basic fundamentals of a good life. It's creating a good life. It's letting people make those decisions where they plan with optimism and hope for the future. Things like spending time with friends and family with enough money in your pocket to do it, to plan for your holidays, to plan for your trips, to be able to think of the life you're creating for your kids." "And that's what we can do here in Greater Manchester. And the final thing I'll say is that this is about the city region that we want to be. This is the Greater Manchester that we can be. And that has to come with the belief that we can build things that make life better." "And I'll say this really plainly. To those that voted for me, thank you. To the Labour support that's in doubt, thank you. To those of you that lent me your vote, thank you. And for those of you that didn't vote for me, I will still be your mayor because I will defend this city region with every bone in my body, and I will fight for a better life for all of us." "So the hard work begins. I've done this with a promise and a plan, and my promise and commitment to you is that I will make this city region better, but I will work for everyone. I will be a greater mayor for everyone. And we have to heal." "We have to move away from divisive politics that try and pit neighbor against neighbor, and we'll work together. We'll do it together, we'll deliver it together, and we will build a Greater Manchester that works for all of us, that we're all proud of, where everyone feels welcome and everyone has a chance to succeed. Thank you."

Farrukh

14,274 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Just in $AMD Anush "Speed is the moat"|ROCm🎙️ In the race to define the future of AI, what's the one advantage that truly lasts? It's not proprietary tech, argues Anush Elangovan Elangovan, VP of AI Software at AMD , but the sustainable speed of innovation. He explains why AMD is rejecting the "walled garden" model for its open source ROCm stack, betting that an open community flywheel is the key to victory. Listen to understand how this open strategy is designed to out-innovate closed systems by empowering developers to solve everything from frontier-model challenges to the mundane, everyday problems that define the "last mile" of AI. AMD ROCm Software: Part 1 Transcript [00:00:00] Andrew Zigler: Joining me is Anush Elangovan, VP of AI software at AMD. And when people talk about AI compute, the conversation often stops at hardware specs, but it's more than just physical chips that win the game. It's also the software ecosystems supporting them. [00:00:18] Andrew Zigler: The prevailing strategy in the industry has been to build something like a walled garden. You know, something closed, proprietary locks, developers in. But AMD is betting on an entirely different play, open source acceleration, and with rock, their open source AI software stack. AMD is building not just hardware parity, but an innovation flywheel that's powered by the community with interoperability and the freedom to scale without all of that pesky lockin. [00:00:48] Andrew Zigler: And in this world, speed is your moat and how fast you can innovate while your platform remains open, flexible, and standardize across all of its applications. That's what we're gonna explore [00:01:00] today. So Anush, I'm really excited to have you here. Welcome to Dev Interrupted. [00:01:04] Anush Elangovan: Thanks for having me. Uh, super excited to chat about it. [00:01:07] Andrew Zigler: Amazing. Well, let's go ahead and dive right in with kind of what I laid it out with in the beginning, the idea of the moat and it being about speed. I wanna unpack that a bit because that came from you when you and I first spoke. And I, and I want to know, you know, how do you define speed inside of AMD beyond just things like hardware, benchmarks. [00:01:27] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, that's a very good question. So when we typically talk about speed, everyone's like, Hey, hardware benchmark specs, right? Like, uh, memory bandwidth or, or flops. And that is one important part of it, uh, AMD does very well. With that, we do have, a, a very good history of executing on that axis. [00:01:47] Anush Elangovan: But when I say speed is the moat, it is about, uh, how we prepare, how we build the muscle to run the race for a long time and run it fast. And it is [00:02:00] not about a single point in time that you've, you've beat some you know, benchmark and, and you declare victory. It's about building the ability to consistently develop and deliver. [00:02:13] Anush Elangovan: Both hardware and software innovation at scale and do it fast, right? Like, you know, we we're increasingly getting to a point where models come out and they're, uh, you know, a year or two ago it was like, Hey, they work on AMD on day zero, which is great, but now they are performing on AMD the day it releases, right? [00:02:32] Anush Elangovan: So, what does it take to Prefetch where the industry is going? Be prepared to intercept. At that point is what you know, I, I refer to as you know, the, the speed factor in, in creating this mode, right? And the mode is just shed all things that hold you back and run as fast as you can. [00:02:53] Anush Elangovan: Uh, because the pace of innovation that is, uh, being seen in, in AI [00:03:00] industries is just. Amazing. Right? And it's like, it's transformational at at how you generate electricity. It's transformational as at how you build data centers. It's transformational at how you deploy compute, networking. It's transformational at what kind of use cases you, you know, uh, use AI for. [00:03:17] Anush Elangovan: Uh, and for that, you need to be prepared to, see what comes tomorrow and be prepared to run the race tomorrow. [00:03:23] Andrew Zigler: Yeah, it's a really great perspective because it highlights that it's not just like a checkpoint that you run through. I like how you called out, like it's not just hitting that benchmark or being the best in class at that moment, in that snapshot, it's about having a. The throughput and about having that dedication to the idea and continuing to deliver on it. [00:03:43] Andrew Zigler: It's not just crossing the threshold, but it's also being the engine. And that's what, that's what protects a business. That is the moat, because the moat is that innovation layer, the faster and more, uh, future forward. That you can work and think, [00:04:00] you know, the better. Uh, we, we talk a lot about like future forward work styles. [00:04:04] Andrew Zigler: Like what are the things I could be doing right now today that are gonna be like, way more useful tomorrow? Let, let's abandon those, workflows that are older and that kind of like, that translates into. An advantage when you work that way. You know, what kind of things have you learned working with, uh, like across all spectrums of people who would use ROCm, right? [00:04:23] Andrew Zigler: You have like the developers, but then you also have the enterprises and you have this large span of adoptees, right? So what is the, what does that look like that you learn? [00:04:32] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, so, so the way I look at it is there are gonna be pockets of different, uh, you know, cadences, right? Like, so people who are deploying in enterprises, for example, right? The validation and how long it takes for them to deploy an LLM that's secure. It's, with guardrails, et cetera, maybe longer. [00:04:52] Anush Elangovan: but you still have to go through the process and you have to be prepared to like, walk that walk to deploy an enterprises. That doesn't mean it's [00:05:00] not fast, that's as fast as you can do for that industry, right? And if you are deploying AI in healthcare, right, it's, it's got its own, uh, cycle. [00:05:07] Anush Elangovan: but in each one of these, you want to see how, like, go down to the essence of what is it that you actually have to do. And, you know, I, I, I like how you framed it. It's like it's, you shed your prior assumptions of how things are done, right. And, and you kind of build up from a, uh, first principles, uh, approach to say, this is how I could use AI to unlock, whatever I'm doing. [00:05:33] Anush Elangovan: And, and, some of it, you know, it's good to really step back and look at. Just question every part of it, right? Like right now you're getting chat GPT and, Gemini competing for like, math, olympiads and, and, uh, college, uh, reasoning, uh, tests. Right? And, and those are like that, that is amazing and increasingly like complex tasks that they're trying to do. [00:05:58] Anush Elangovan: But there may also be like. [00:06:00] More mundane things that AI could, could get applied to. Right? And, and so when we think about shedding old ways, you wanna shed it not just in like the tip of the spear. It's like, you know, I'm gonna see what's the frontier model. It's also, it could be something as simple as. [00:06:18] Anush Elangovan: How do you choose a, a movie, uh, you know, like a recommendation system, right? Or, or, uh, an automated, uh, flight, uh, rebooking system. So the moment, you know, your flight is late, uh, right now it's a notification, right? It's like, oh, you got a text message saying your flight's late. And I got that like three times this week. [00:06:38] Anush Elangovan: But anyway, uh, and, and, and, and, I was just like, okay, so if I were to rethink this. All this MCPs that we have that should be hooked up into an MCP that says, your flight's delayed. Here are your options. If you want, you know, these are the paid options. Yeah. Here are the free options. This will get you back into your you know, Toronto airport [00:07:00] tonight. [00:07:00] Anush Elangovan: Or if you stay, here's a hotel plus this, plus this, plus. It's just like, go ahead is all I should say. Versus now I'm like, okay, can someone, you know, can I call a travel agent? Can I do this? Can I go online and log into And you know, so we gotta fundamentally rethink even those like small, nuances of, things that we do that can be automated out and AI is really, really good at doing something like this, right? Maybe I just explained an AI startup idea right now. Somebody should just start that. [00:07:29] Andrew Zigler: I think you did. Yeah, you definitely did. Someone, one of our listeners is definitely going to lift that off of you. I, I, I, you know, I hate being on the receiving end of those. You feel a little helpless and then you have to like, follow the whole flow. So I know what you mean. Like I, I like how you called out that the build and this like. [00:07:45] Andrew Zigler: Where speed is your moat and the innovation layer is protecting you, is what makes you better than your competitors. How you scale that and you bring that to market. So by understanding the problems that you're solving, uh, throwing away those older assumptions, but also [00:08:00] recognizing that like. We're building every single day, new things and new ways of using stuff that we're still figuring out the implications of. [00:08:08] Andrew Zigler: And so when you have a lot of velocity and you're introducing a lot of new ideas, and maybe you have that workflow now that automatically rebook your flight off of your late flight text message, and uh, I know I would certainly use it, but you know, what kind of philosophies guide the way that y'all think about building this ecosystem to manage that stability while letting folks. [00:08:29] Andrew Zigler: Play with the speed and the assumptions and the airplane re bookings. [00:08:34] Anush Elangovan: so, so I think, you know, we need to peel one layer down, right? and the philosophy is, Hey, we, we just discovered electricity, right? And you know what we're gonna do? We are gonna make motors, uh, or dynamos, right? Like engines. Uh, sure. We don't know if it's gonna be a Ferrari that you're gonna make, or it's a a a a dump truck. [00:08:57] Anush Elangovan: That's good for doing this. But let's [00:09:00] let, which is also required, right? You need a dump truck. You need a garbage truck. And, [00:09:04] Andrew Zigler: Yeah. You need the [00:09:04] Anush Elangovan: course you need, uh, a Ferrari for a midlife crisis, right? So, [00:09:09] Andrew Zigler: precisely. [00:09:10] Anush Elangovan: But, but my, uh, point is what do we build next? And, uh, and this is what I meant by like, okay, let's, let's take those baby steps to build the. [00:09:20] Anush Elangovan: Infrastructure that's required that we know we'll have to use, right? So, so if I just discovered electricity, okay, great. Now one, how do I save this electricity and how do I use it? So there's battery technology, so you need to do something like that, right? Like so. But then you also want to make it into an actionable thing. [00:09:37] Anush Elangovan: You want to make it for like automobiles, or you wanna use it for, you know, powering, uh, entire cities. So it is that transformational. So, uh, AI is that transformational. So, if you distill down, it'll, it'll come down to how do we think about, what we can do with this this fundamental technology that, We may not be aware of what it [00:10:00] is gonna unlock next, but at least you know the next step is clear, right? It's like a dense fog, you know, it's gonna be like, it, it's the right path. You see the light, but it's kind of like out there and, and the steps you're taking are concrete and you're like, okay, this is good. [00:10:16] Anush Elangovan: I, this is better than where I was or where we were. So we are moving forward. So you can build with the. Intuition from what you see in the short term and a tactical view, but towards what you think the future is gonna be. [00:10:28] Andrew Zigler: Right. You almost like we're all in this like fog of war, right? And like you said, you're reaching out and you're trying to step through it. You could think of it too, as like you're in the dark and your hands are up in front of you and you know that. You're, you're not gonna run your face into a wall because your hands are out in front of you, but you're not gonna maybe do much better than that. [00:10:45] Andrew Zigler: So that's kind of like, I think the eco, the, the industry, the world that we find ourselves in, uh, and we all have to, then this becomes the power of an ecosystem, of a group of people working together to create that layer of, [00:11:00] uh, of establishing the [00:11:01] Anush Elangovan: exactly. And I, I, I just, instead of, you know, saying fog of war I describe it as like, you're in this. Beautiful valley with like a morning, uh, fog that's in. You can smell the flowers. You, you hear the birds. You are like, okay, it's, we are in like, uh, utopian paradise and yes, I just need to like, continue the walk, right? [00:11:24] Anush Elangovan: and then move forward with that, conviction that you're in the right spot. [00:11:27] Andrew Zigler: Yeah. So let's talk about that ecosystem world. This nice, I love how you describe it, this grassy side of a hill in the morning that's covered in some mist and maybe we can't see 30 feet in one direction, but it sure is a beautiful hill and it smells nice. And so we're all here. And why is, in that world, why is. [00:11:44] Andrew Zigler: You know, open source, their strategic advantage that y'all are going for in the AI hardware market. And, and then how does like ROCm turn that into wins for people within that ecosystem? [00:11:56] Anush Elangovan: you know, the, the way we look at it is this, is kind of like how I view [00:12:00] AI and the ecosystem, right? But, but it is for everyone to enjoy. Uh, and so we do want to make sure that. You know, it is, uh, beneficial for everyone. [00:12:09] Anush Elangovan: The ecosystem can come in and, and innovate. It's an open innovation engine. and uh, it is very different from, you know, having a walled garden with, Hey, only I know how to do this and I'm gonna do it and throw it over the fence and you can use it or keep walking, right? So we'd like to be good citizens that way, but also. [00:12:30] Anush Elangovan: Uh, it is self-fulfilling in a way, right? Like it, the, the pace at which we innovate with open source is unmatched. Like, you know, our serving engines are like VLLM and, and sg l. Those things, uh, those frameworks are like super, super aggressive in terms of how fast they come out with features and how fast they can you know, get performant models out. [00:12:52] Anush Elangovan: And that compared with what, uh, you'd get from, you know, the likes of like T-R-T-L-L-M or something is always lagging, right? Because you [00:13:00] just can't keep up with you know, 200 commits a week just on one particular model to get that model really performant [00:13:06] Andrew Zigler: And, and, and in that world where, you know, everyone can enjoy the winds of this, what kind of customer stories or innovation stories have really stood out to you and excite you about building and creating this place for developers? [00:13:19] Anush Elangovan: Yeah. So I think the parts that are super exciting for me are when when we get to see a customer that is first skeptical. Then they start a little like, okay, fine, we'll give you a chance. Uh, we do a simple, uh, POC and then they're like, huh, this seems to work. Yeah, we told you it works. [00:13:42] Anush Elangovan: You don't have to change one line of code. Really? Yes, no need to change one line of code. Okay, let's try a production workload. So then they try it. Oh, you're more performant than the competition. Yes. We're more performant than, than the competition. So how much does it cost? And we're like, oh, it's your TCO is better with, uh, [00:14:00] AMD. [00:14:00] Anush Elangovan: So again, they're like, wow, okay, good. So now how do we deploy at scale? And then we go deploy it at scale. And when they give a thumbs up on that and they say, this is good, right? That's when you know, you, you see it go full circle from like, oh, we, we've never heard about AMD to like actually deploy to tens of thousands of GPUs In the order of a few months, right? It, it, it really is fascinating to see and very exciting and invigorating to [00:14:28] Andrew Zigler: Yeah. At like a great exposure to a lot of interesting problems. And, and then people using the infrastructure, the, the technology available to solve those problems. Really specific problems by the way, that's often why they're bringing their data and AI to it, uh, is because it is really specific and important for them. [00:14:45] Andrew Zigler: And there's a, a lot I think that other engineering orgs can learn and even emulate from AMD's success and, and having this open source ecosystem and it causing this acceleration within. You [00:15:00] know, uh, customers and enterprises that use and adopt the tools and, and, and that creates an advantage. And that goes back to why we're talking and like the real thesis of our conversation today. [00:15:10] Andrew Zigler: So how do you think engineering leaders that are listening to this and obviously tapping into this great success AMD has from an open source flywheel, how do you think other, other folks building in the same space can foster that open, first, that open source oriented culture in order to, you know, accelerate their innovation goals? [00:15:29] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, that's a very good question. So the startup that um, was acquired by AMD we, we built, I mean, we started off doing iot stuff and you know, smart ring and all that, right? But in the, the end of like, uh, and not the end, the last six years of the company was building ML compilers. [00:15:47] Anush Elangovan: And ml, ML compilers are like super, uh, complicated, sophisticated, advanced algorithms, dah, dah, dah. but it was all open source, right? So our VCs were like, wait, what do you mean your core [00:16:00] IP is open source? And um, the speed is the moat applied even then, right? It was just like, yes, if you have an idea that. [00:16:08] Anush Elangovan: Because someone saw this idea that you are, they're gonna be able to catch up, then you probably have the wrong idea anyway. But if they are, you know, you execute and they're gonna catch up, that you should assume they're gonna catch up. Right? So you gotta move forward. So keeping it open source is super important. [00:16:25] Anush Elangovan: But also to your question on like, you know, the learnings from an AMD standpoint, right? If there are, hard problems, I'd say dig in and work through it, right? Like there's no way but through it, right? That should be the simple mentality. And more, uh, frequently than not. you'll see that you'll just make it through in a, in, in good form. [00:16:52] Anush Elangovan: But if you doubt it and you're like, oh, I don't know if I should commit, if I'm, I, you know, what should just commit to do the right thing [00:17:00] every step, right? Every step, and just keep taking one step in front of the other. And in no time you'll see that you'll be running. Right. And, and yes, the first few steps will be like, yeah, everyone's complaining about your software quality. [00:17:15] Anush Elangovan: Everyone's complaining about this and that, and it doesn't work. And, and a few steps in, you know, you get, you get the hang of all the complaints that are coming in. You get the feedback loop. You're like, okay, what, what are you prioritizing again? One step in front of the other, right? You just keep knocking that out and then you get to a point where you're, it just becomes second nature, right? To do the, to do the right thing. And, and then yes, if someone gives you two options, you'll be like, fine. This is, uh, you know, there's always the resource trade off. There's always a human capital trade off, but what's the right thing to do? of course, I, I'm pragmatic about what we choose, but, but if the right thing for your long-term success is dig in, go first, principles, make it [00:18:00] happen. [00:18:00] Anush Elangovan: Well. Then just go for that. There's, there is no shortcut to [00:18:04] Andrew Zigler: acknowledging, you know, how it aligns with your mission, your core company goals, and what you're looking to achieve. And, and I, I love how you rightfully called out that in the open source world and you know, you have your technology that you've built, what you think is your moat upon, right? [00:18:22] Andrew Zigler: It's your code and, and to open source that, or to just make it where anyone could peer in is, you know. Scary in one regard, but two, it just kind of feels like you're handing away your throne room in some kind of sense, a very direct feeling sense. But the ultimately, you were really right to call out, and this is something I think about all the time, that the real power there is still the speed This the speed. [00:18:42] Andrew Zigler: That was the moat at the beginning of our conversation. It's the speed in combination with your. Very specific domain understanding of what you're building and what you're creating, and your new role as the steward of that world and how people plug into it, which [00:19:00] has frankly, a lot more influence and power than lording over a closed. [00:19:04] Andrew Zigler: You know, repository or an ecosystem, and like you said, like throwing things over the wall. Sure. There, there might be people always on the other side of that wall, but you're not gonna have a great connection with them. You're not gonna be able to really clearly understand them. I, I like your metaphor of the side of the field of the mountain a lot more. [00:19:23] Andrew Zigler: But, but in the, in this world, you know, where. That speed is, is the power and, and open source is just one way that you can harness that speed to get really far ahead and to innovate. , There's other parts of this equation that you can be experimenting with too, and I'd love to pick your brain about them as a software leader and, and, and one of them is about looking forward and kind of understanding that future that we're all building towards and beyond today's models and hardware. [00:19:48] Andrew Zigler: You know, what do you see as the next major bottleneck or opportunity in the AI compute space? As, as you know, enterprises and folks start to get a little more mature about what's available to [00:20:00] them. [00:20:00] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, I think, the bottleneck and opportunity is, uh, what I'd call, call walking the last mile of ai. Right. Uh, and like I I, I gave you an example, uh, previously, but, but it's similar to that. It's like there are cases where Humans have so many, uh, things to do in your day. You know, like the, if we sit down and actually had a customer focus like, okay, these customers lives, I'm gonna save four hours of this customer's life. And if you actually sit down and look at all of that, it'll be. Easily automatable, easily you know, uh, applicable, uh, for ai, right? [00:20:39] Anush Elangovan: Like, but then making it happen is gonna take a little bit, right? It's like maybe it's, uh, paying your utility bill, right? Or something like that, right? Or, or, your healthcare explanation of benefits. Uh, like, I'm sure you get an explanation of benefits, and I'm like, I, I don't even know what that thing is. [00:20:55] Anush Elangovan: It's just like EOB and like. [00:20:57] Andrew Zigler: it's a big, a big old PDF. Yeah, [00:21:00] exactly. [00:21:01] Anush Elangovan: Like, like, I'm like great straight to the, uh, shredder, right? And but that could be, you know, automated with the ai, right? It, it, it'd be like, Hey, the summary of this thing is you went and visited this day. Everything is okay. Everything is paid for, so don't worry, it's not a bill. [00:21:17] Anush Elangovan: That again, the same, uh, thing, but the sense of what that information overload is could be. Digested by ai, uh, accumulated over time and retrieved when you need it. Like, I don't, I actually don't even need to know this EOB right now, unless of course, whenever I need to know it, that maybe, you know, like for some benefits I need to figure out what do, what did I do over the past year and how do I apply it? Source:

Mike

15,248 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce

Someone stood on a piece of land, looked at a living, breathing dog who had done nothing but exist, and said: "Just shoot him dead." Not "get rid of him." Not "take him to a shelter." Not even "I don't want him anymore." Shoot him dead. I want you to sit with that sentence for a second before you keep scrolling, because everything that comes after it only makes sense once you understand how casually those five words get said in this world. Somewhere, right now, someone is saying a version of that sentence about a living thing that trusted them, or wanted to, or was still learning how. Most of the time nobody films it. Most of the time there's no ending. There's just a decision, made in under a second, by someone who will forget they ever made it. This time, someone didn't listen. This is the part where I'm supposed to tell you what happens next. I'm not going to. Not because I'm holding it hostage for engagement — okay, maybe a little — but mostly because the story doesn't work if I hand it to you pre-chewed. You need to watch a dog decide, in real time, whether the human species is worth the risk. You need to watch that calculation happen behind a pair of eyes that have every reason to say no. That's not something I can describe to you in a tweet. That's something you have to sit through. But I can tell you what it's about. It's about the gap. The invisible, unmeasurable gap between a dog who has been failed by people and a dog who has decided to try again anyway. Nobody talks about that gap. We talk about rescues like they're a single moment — the dramatic snatch, the shelter cage, the "and then everything was fine" — but that's not how trust works, and it's definitely not how fear works. Fear doesn't leave because you fed it once. Fear moves out slowly, one inch at a time, and it takes its shoes off at the door so you don't hear it coming back. PART ONE: THE VERDICT Here's what almost nobody says out loud: dogs get sentenced constantly, by people who will never be held accountable for the sentence. Too old. Too much energy. Too expensive. Doesn't match the new couch. Growled once at a toddler who was pulling its ears. In goes the verdict, out goes the dog — sometimes to a shelter, sometimes to a shed, sometimes to the side of a highway at 60 miles an hour with the door still swinging shut. And sometimes, if the owner is lazy enough and cruel enough at the same time, the sentence is the one you already read. Just shoot him dead. Nobody ever asks the dog's side. Obviously. He can't testify. He can't explain that he was scared of the vacuum, or that he barked at 2am because something moved in the yard, or that he never asked to be born into a house that saw him as a liability the second he became inconvenient. All he can do is react to what happens to him. And what happened to this one was a verdict that most animals never survive to tell. Except — spoiler-adjacent, not a spoiler — he did survive. That's the only thing I'll give you for free. He survived the verdict. What he did with the rest of the sentence, what it cost him to survive it, what he had to unlearn about people before he could stand near one without flinching — that's the part you're going to want your full attention for. PART TWO: THE DISTANCE THAT NOBODY MEASURES There's a very specific kind of animal behavior that people who haven't lived it will never fully understand: the dog who wants to come closer and physically cannot make his legs do it. You've maybe seen a version of it — the shelter dog pressed against the back wall of the kennel, the street dog who follows you for six blocks but won't take food from your hand, the "feral" label slapped onto an animal who is, underneath the label, simply doing math. Every approach is a risk assessment. Every human hand is a variable that could be gentle or could be the last thing he ever feels. You don't get to skip that math just because your intentions are good. The dog doesn't know your intentions. He only knows what hands have done before. So he keeps his distance. Not because he's unfriendly — dogs who've been failed are very often the most desperate to be loved, which is its own kind of tragic irony — but because distance is the only insurance policy he has left. He'll circle. He'll watch. He'll get close enough to almost, almost, and then something — a sound, a movement, a memory with no name attached to it — will send him back to the treeline, and you'll be left standing there wondering what you did wrong, when the honest answer is: nothing. It's not about you. It's about every hand that came before yours. This is the part of the story where most people give up. Not because they don't care, but because patience like that isn't natural. It goes against every instinct you have, watching a scared animal and wanting to just fix it today, right now, with one good meal and a soft voice. It doesn't work that way. It was never going to work that way. And the fact that someone didn't give up on this particular dog — that they let the timeline be the dog's timeline instead of their own — is the actual plot of the video you're about to watch. Not the reunion. The waiting. PART THREE: WHAT NOBODY TELLS YOU ABOUT REBUILDING TRUST You can't apologize your way into an animal's trust. You can't explain to a dog that you're not like the last person, that this time is different, that you promise. Words mean nothing to an animal whose entire understanding of humans has been written in actions. The only currency that works is repetition — showing up the same way, at the same pace, without asking for anything back, for so long that the dog's nervous system slowly, grudgingly, starts to recalibrate what a human standing nearby actually means. That recalibration has a cost, and the cost is time you don't get to see the value of until it's already paid. Every single day where nothing visibly changes is still doing something. The dog is watching. Filing data. Building, molecule by molecule, a case for why this particular human might be the exception. You don't get updates on that internal process. You just keep showing up and hope the math eventually tips in your favor. And when it does tip — when there's a first moment of contact, a first inch of distance closed that will never open back up the same way again — it doesn't look like a movie. It's not slow motion. It's not a soundtrack swelling. It's small, and quiet, and if you weren't paying close attention you'd almost miss it. Which is exactly why you need to actually watch this one instead of scrolling past assuming you already know how it goes. You don't. Nobody's story of rebuilding trust looks the same, and this one has a shape you haven't seen before. PART FOUR: THE CASUAL CRUELTY OF "JUST GET RID OF IT" Let's go back to that sentence, because I don't think we're done with it. Just shoot him dead. Think about what has to happen in a person's head for those words to come out that easily. It's not usually rage. Rage burns hot and fast and then it's gone. This is colder than that. This is the language of someone who has stopped seeing a living creature as a living creature and started seeing him as an inconvenience with a heartbeat — a problem to be solved, a line item to be closed, and closing it in the most permanent, least effortful way available. That mindset doesn't come from nowhere. It comes from a culture that has quietly taught a lot of people that animals are disposable the second they stop being convenient. That a dog is a product with a return policy. That love, if it was ever there at all, expires the moment it becomes inconvenient. You see it in the volume of animals abandoned every single year for reasons that amount to "we changed our minds." You see it in how easily people say "I'll just get another one" like a dog is a phone case. You see it in a sentence like the one that started this whole post — a sentence casual enough that the person saying it probably forgot they said it by the following week. But here's the thing about casual cruelty: it only wins if nobody's watching, and if nobody's willing to do the inconvenient thing instead. The inconvenient thing here wasn't dramatic. It wasn't a rescue montage. It was choosing, day after day, not to be the kind of person who says that sentence. It was choosing patience over convenience, presence over ultimatums, and a scared dog's timeline over anyone else's schedule. That's not a headline. That's just what actually saving something looks like, most of the time — unglamorous, slow, and completely invisible until suddenly it isn't. PART FIVE: THE QUESTION UNDERNEATH THE VIDEO Here's what I actually want you to sit with while you watch this, more than the dog, more than the backstory, more than the sentence that kicked the whole thing off: what would you have done? Not in theory. Not as the version of yourself that definitely would have been patient and kind and consistent for however many months or years it took. I mean actually — if a scared, unwanted animal showed up on your property and kept its distance for weeks, would you have kept showing up? If it took longer than you expected, would your patience have held? If someone told you it wasn't worth the effort, would you have believed them? Most people like to believe they'd be the exception. Most people, if we're honest, would've given up around week three. That's not a judgment — patience like that is genuinely hard, and most of us are stretched thin enough in our own lives without taking on a slow-motion trust rebuild with an animal who might never fully come around. But some people don't give up. Some people treat a scared, unwanted dog like he's worth more time than the person who wanted him dead ever gave him. And when you watch someone do that — really watch it, not skim past it — it recalibrates something in you too. It's hard to explain why watching a stranger be patient with a dog on the internet can hit as hard as it does. But it does. It always does. There's something in us that recognizes the shape of a second chance being handed to someone — something — who was told they didn't deserve one. PART SIX: WHY THIS ISN'T JUST A DOG VIDEO I know how this sounds. "It's just a dog video." I've said that about other videos too, right before they wrecked me completely. But there's a reason stories like this one land differently than the average "look how cute" clip. It's because underneath the surface, this isn't really about a dog. It's about the exact same question that shows up everywhere in human life, just translated into fur and silence and body language instead of words: what do you do with something — someone — who has been told they're not worth saving? Everyone reading this knows a version of that story that isn't about an animal. Maybe it's a person who was written off young and spent years proving the label wrong. Maybe it's a relationship everyone said wasn't worth the work. Maybe it's a version of yourself from a few years ago that a lot of people, maybe even you, had already given up on. The instinct to walk away from something difficult, something that isn't guaranteed to work out, something that might take way longer than feels reasonable — that instinct doesn't care whether the "something" has four legs or two. It shows up everywhere. And every time someone chooses to stay anyway, chooses the slow rebuild over the easy exit, it's worth paying attention to. Not because it's rare. Because it's rare enough that most of us forget it's even an option. PART SEVEN: WATCH IT PROPERLY So here's my actual ask, and it's a small one. Don't watch this with the sound off while you scroll to the next thing. Don't skip to the end because you already think you know how it goes — you don't, and skipping ahead will genuinely cost you the part that makes this different from every other rescue video you've seen this year. Watch the whole thing, start to finish, and pay attention to the parts that feel like nothing is happening. That's not filler. That's the actual story. The part where nothing seems to be happening is the part where everything is happening, quietly, underneath the surface, one cautious step at a time. By the time you get to the end, you'll understand exactly why that opening sentence exists at all — why I needed you to hear it before you saw a single frame. Because without it, this just looks like a dog being sweet. With it, you understand what that sweetness had to survive to exist. You understand what it costs an animal to trust again after someone decided his life wasn't worth the trouble of finding him a home. You understand that every soft moment in this video is standing on top of a decision that almost went the other way, made by someone who chose completely differently than the person before them. There is a version of this story that ends in a hole in the ground, unmarked, unremembered, unfilmed. Nobody would have known. That's the version that happens more often than any of us want to think about. This isn't that version. This is the other one — the rare one, the one that only exists because somebody looked at the same "inconvenient" animal that someone else wanted gone and decided that inconvenient wasn't the same thing as disposable. You're not going to get the details from me. You're going to have to watch it. But I'll tell you this much: by the end, "just shoot him dead" is going to sound less like a sentence someone said about a dog, and a lot more like a sentence that tells you everything you need to know about the person who said it — and absolutely nothing about the dog who proved them wrong. Watch until the very last second. The last few frames are the whole reason this post exists. If this hit you the way it hit me, don't just scroll past it silently. Send it to the one person in your life who still believes some things — some animals, some people — aren't worth the effort of saving. Let them sit with it the way I made you sit with that first sentence. Some verdicts deserve to be overturned in public. PART EIGHT: THE BIOLOGY OF A FLINCH There's a reason a dog like this doesn't just "get over it" the way people want him to. Fear like that isn't a personality trait. It's a nervous system that got rewired by repetition, the same way trust gets built by repetition — except rewiring fear takes a fraction of the time and undoing it takes ten times as long. One bad hand can undo a hundred good ones if it lands at the wrong moment. That's not the dog being dramatic. That's just how threat memory works in every mammal on this planet, humans included. You don't choose to flinch. Your body decides for you, based on evidence it collected before you were old enough to argue with it. So when you watch an animal hesitate at a hand that means no harm, you're not watching stubbornness. You're watching a very reasonable, very intelligent risk calculation running in real time, built entirely out of things that happened to him before anyone in this story ever showed up. The tragedy isn't that he was cautious. The tragedy is that caution was earned, fairly, by people who never had to answer for teaching it to him. What gets me every time I think about stories like this one is how much strength it actually takes to be cautious and still, eventually, choose to try again anyway. We love to talk about bravery like it only looks one way — loud, dramatic, obvious. Nobody talks about the bravery of a scared animal taking one more step toward a species that has already hurt him, on nothing but a hope that this time might be different. That's not the absence of fear. That's fear, fully present, being overridden by something even stronger. If you want to know what real courage looks like, it rarely looks like a superhero. More often it looks exactly like this — small, quiet, four-legged, and completely unaware that anyone's even watching. PART NINE: THE OTHER DOG NOBODY'S TALKING ABOUT There's a supporting character in this story who never asked to be one, and who honestly deserves more credit than he's going to get in the comments section. Every rescue story like this one has a hidden variable that nobody accounts for: the animal who was already there. The one who didn't have to share space, didn't have to share attention, didn't have to be patient with a nervous, unpredictable newcomer showing up on his territory uninvited. He could have made this so much harder. He didn't. And that quiet, uncomplicated generosity — the kind you only get from an animal who has never once calculated whether kindness is worth the risk — is doing more heavy lifting in this story than most people watching will ever notice. It's worth sitting with that for a second, too. Some of the most important characters in any redemption story aren't the ones being redeemed. They're the ones who simply didn't complicate it. Who didn't guard the door. Who treated a stranger's fear as something to be curious about instead of something to be threatened by. If there's a lesson buried in a dog who never asked for one, it might be that one. PART TEN: WHY THE INTERNET IS FULL OF FAKE VERSIONS OF THIS You've probably noticed there's an entire genre of content built around manufactured redemption arcs — staged rescues, dogs that were never actually in danger, timelines compressed into a single afternoon to make the "transformation" hit harder on camera. I'm not going to pretend that genre doesn't exist, because you've almost certainly seen it and been burned by it before, which is exactly why so many people scroll past real stories with the same skepticism they've built up for the fake ones. That skepticism is earned. It's also, in this case, going to work against you if you let it make you scroll past this one too. The difference between the manufactured version and the real one is almost always pacing. The fake version wants to get to the payoff as fast as possible because the payoff is the whole point of making it. The real version drags in places, hesitates in places, spends way too long on moments that don't look like anything is happening — because that's what actually rebuilding trust with a frightened animal looks like when nobody's editing it for maximum dopamine. If a story like this feels slower than you expected, that's not a flaw. That's the tell that it's real. Real trust doesn't hit its mark on a fifteen-second cut. PART ELEVEN: A NOTE FOR ANYONE WHO'S EVER FELT LIKE THE DOG IN THIS STORY I said earlier this isn't just a dog video, and I meant it, but I want to say the quiet part directly instead of leaving it as subtext. If you've ever been the "too much" one — too sensitive, too cautious, too slow to trust, too hard to love without a manual — this story is for you specifically, not just as a metaphor but as evidence. Evidence that the people who wanted to give up on you were wrong about what you were worth, the same way the person in this story was wrong. Evidence that being difficult to reach doesn't mean you're not worth reaching. Evidence that the right kind of patience doesn't get tired of you the way the wrong kind of person did. You don't owe anyone an explanation for how long it takes you to trust again after something breaks that trust. Nobody gets to put a timeline on your healing just because your timeline is inconvenient for them. The dog in this video didn't apologize for taking as long as he took, and he shouldn't have had to. Neither should you. The people worth keeping in your life are the ones who show up consistently enough, for long enough, without demanding a schedule for when you'll finally feel safe. Everyone else was never actually offering you safety in the first place. They were offering you a deadline. PART TWELVE: THE LAST THING I'LL SAY BEFORE YOU GO WATCH IT I've spent this entire post refusing to tell you what actually happens, and I'm going to keep doing that right up until the end, because the not-knowing is doing exactly what it's supposed to do — it's making you want to see it for yourself instead of taking my word for it. Good. That's the point. Some stories lose everything the second you summarize them. This is one of them. You can read a thousand words about the shape of trust being rebuilt, and none of them will land the way thirty seconds of actual footage will, because words can describe hesitation but they can't make you feel the seconds stretching while it happens. So go watch it. Watch the whole thing, not the highlight, not someone else's twelve-second repost with the context stripped out. Watch it start to finish, the way it was meant to be seen, and pay attention to how long the hard parts last compared to how short the resolution feels — because that ratio is the entire point. That imbalance, months of nothing followed by moments of everything, is what real change actually looks like, in dogs and in people both. It's never as fast as we want it to be. It's always worth it anyway. Somebody said "just shoot him dead" about a dog who turned out to be worth all of this. Go find out exactly how wrong they were. PART THIRTEEN: WHAT YOU'LL PROBABLY DO AFTER YOU WATCH IT I already know roughly how this goes, because it goes the same way every time a story like this actually lands. You'll watch it once, quickly, half-distracted, the way you watch most things in a feed built to keep you moving. And then something in the pacing, or the eyes, or the exact moment the hesitation breaks, is going to make you go back and watch it a second time, slower, actually paying attention this time. That second watch is always the one that gets people. The first watch is for your eyes. The second watch is for whatever part of you still remembers what it feels like to be given up on. Then you'll do the thing everyone does — you'll look at the comments, half expecting someone to have ruined it with a joke, and instead you'll find a wall of strangers who all had the exact same reaction you did, which is somehow both comforting and a little unsettling, because it means this feeling isn't rare. It means a lot of us are quietly carrying around the same soft spot for stories about being chosen after everyone else already walked away. We don't talk about that soft spot very often. We just recognize it instantly in each other whenever something like this shows up in the feed. And then, if the story really got you, you'll do the thing I already asked you to do earlier, except now you'll actually mean it — you'll send it to somebody. Not because you think they haven't seen a rescue video before. Because you want them to sit with that opening sentence the exact way you just did, cold, before they know how it ends. You want to watch their reaction the way someone once wanted to watch yours. That's not manipulation. That's just what people do with stories that matter to them. We pass them forward, hoping they land on someone the way they landed on us. PART FOURTEEN: THE ONE THING I WON'T LET YOU FORGET Before you go tap play, I need you to hold onto one detail, because it's the thread that ties this whole post together and it's easy to lose in a feed that moves as fast as this one does. The dog in this story is not a rare exception. He is not a lottery winner. He is one version, filmed and shared and lucky enough to have someone stubborn enough to see it through, of something that is happening constantly, everywhere, to animals who will never get a camera pointed at them and never get a caption written about them. For every one of him, there are dozens who got the other verdict. The one nobody films. The one that ends exactly where the sentence said it would. That's not meant to guilt you. It's meant to make the three minutes you're about to spend mean something more than entertainment. Every view, every share, every person who stops scrolling long enough to actually watch instead of skip, is a tiny, almost meaningless vote for the version of the story where patience wins instead of convenience. It won't save the ones who already didn't make it. But it might be the reason the next version of this story — the next scared animal on the next uncertain property, in front of the next person deciding whether he's worth the trouble — gets a different ending than the one that almost happened here. So watch it properly. Watch the pauses. Watch the eyes. Watch exactly how long it takes for something to shift, and remember that every second of that footage is standing on top of a decision someone made not to give up when giving up would have been so much easier, and so much faster, and so much more convenient. Somebody wanted him dead. Somebody else decided he was worth all of this instead. Now go watch which one turned out to be right.

Earth Unveiled

102,282 görüntüleme • 9 gün önce

POV: you time-traveled back to 2005 with a flip cam... but the footage is secretly 4K Created with Flova × Seedance 2.5 Prompt: Preserve the exact face, hairstyle, identity, skin tone, and body proportions from Image throughout. Outfit: sage-green cut-out halter crop top with lace-up front, light-wash distressed wide-leg jeans with graffiti art and rips, white-and-pink platform sneakers, green tinted sunglasses, matching green headband, layered beaded bracelets, and a small sage-green shoulder bag, loose straight hair. Confident young woman with playful street-style energy. Authentic early-2000s personal vlog aesthetic. Extremely raw handheld MiniDV footage with heavy camera shake, natural reframing, partial face crops, focus hunting, exposure shifts, faded colors, mild digital noise, and authentic home-video imperfections, while retaining sharp 4K micro-detail in skin, denim, and reflections. No posing, no cinematic glamour, no stabilization, no modern color grading. 00:00–00:04 Steps out of a gate onto the narrow lane, adjusting her bag on her shoulder, glancing around the quiet street. "Good morning! Let's see what this neighborhood looks like." 00:04–00:08 Strolls past a wall covered in old paint and potted plants, spinning slightly so the camera catches her outfit, denim catching the morning light. "Check out this fit—thrifted and painted it myself." 00:08–00:11 Close-up insert: camera pushes in on her bracelets and the lace-up detail of her top, fabric texture and stitching crisply visible even through the grainy MiniDV filter. 00:11–00:15 Pauses at a row of parked bicycles, playfully spins one pedal with her foot, crouches to inspect the rusted frame. "These old bikes are kind of cute, honestly." 00:15–00:18 Close-up insert: camera focuses briefly on droplets of dew on a bicycle seat and chipped paint on the frame, sharp micro-detail cutting through the soft, faded home-video tone. 00:18–00:21 Walks toward the small convenience store, waves at an elderly shopkeeper stepping outside, gives a polite bow. "Good morning, sir!" 00:21–00:24 Leans against an old brick wall under hanging laundry, reaches up and pulls off her sunglasses, pushing them up onto her head, blinking in the sunlight. "Feels nice without these for a second." 00:24–00:27 Crouches near a cluster of potted plants, gently touching a leaf, camera autofocus hunting between her face and the greenery. "I love how quiet it is out here." 00:27–00:30 Stands, stretches her arms up, sunlight flaring across the lens, hair catching the breeze, glasses still resting on her head as she turns to keep walking. "Okay, let's keep going." Natural ambience only: distant traffic hum, birds, footsteps on concrete, fabric rustle, faint neighborhood chatter, a bicycle bell, breeze. No background music, subtitles, logos, or watermarks. The footage should feel exactly like a genuine early-2000s handheld MiniDV vlog with authentic human movement and realistic interactions, rendered in crisp 4K detail beneath the vintage texture. PART II Preserve the exact face, hairstyle, identity, skin tone, and body proportions from Image throughout, continuing directly from the previous scene with the same morning light and glasses now resting on her head. Outfit: sage-green cut-out halter crop top with lace-up front, light-wash distressed wide-leg jeans with graffiti art and rips, white-and-pink platform sneakers, green tinted sunglasses, matching green headband, layered beaded bracelets, and a small sage-green shoulder bag, loose straight hair. Confident young woman with playful street-style energy. Authentic early-2000s personal vlog aesthetic. Extremely raw handheld MiniDV footage with heavy camera shake, natural reframing, partial face crops, focus hunting, exposure shifts, faded colors, mild digital noise, and authentic home-video imperfections, while retaining sharp 4K micro-detail in skin, denim, and reflections. No posing, no cinematic glamour, no stabilization, no modern color grading. 00:30–00:33 Rounds a corner further down the same concrete lane, utility poles and old walls still visible behind her, slight motion blur as she turns. "There's a cute little corner up ahead." 00:33–00:36 Stops beside laundry hanging between two poles, playfully ducks under a hanging shirt, laughing as it brushes her headband. "Almost took that home with me!" 00:36–00:39 Close-up insert: camera catches fabric of the hanging laundry swaying, sunlight passing through the weave, textures razor sharp against the soft grain of the footage. 00:39–00:42 Sits down on a low stone step outside a small home, adjusting her bag on her lap, glancing down the street. "Let's take a little break here." 00:42–00:45 Pulls a small drink from her bag, takes a casual sip, camera exposure shifting slightly in the changing light. "Perfect timing for this." 00:45–00:48 Stands back up, brushes off her jeans, and crouches slightly to show the graffiti art on her pant leg closer to the camera. "Look, I hand-painted this ghost myself." 00:48–00:50 Close-up insert: camera pushes into the denim graffiti art and distressed rips, thread detail and fabric fraying rendered in crisp 4K clarity beneath the vintage color grade. 00:50–00:53 Walks past the convenience store one more time, waves again at the shopkeeper, who waves back, camera shaking slightly from her footsteps. "See you around, sir!" 00:53–00:56 Stops at the end of the lane, framed by old walls and potted plants, reaches up and slides her sunglasses back down over her eyes with a small smile. "That's the vibe for today." 00:56–01:00 Waves warmly at the camera, laughing, adjusting her sunglasses one last time before the recording naturally cuts off. "Bye for now—see you next time!" Natural ambience only: light breeze, distant scooter engine, footsteps, fabric rustle, faint bird calls, shopkeeper's muffled voice. No background music, subtitles, logos, or watermarks. The footage should feel exactly like a genuine early-2000s handheld MiniDV vlog with authentic human movement and realistic interactions, rendered in crisp 4K detail beneath the vintage texture. #FlovaSeedance25Challenge

Jessica Collins

17,387 görüntüleme • 23 gün önce

[MBC Radio Star feat. actress Jung Young Joo preview/ full eng trans] JDY: Next, we have Jung Young Joo-ssi, who witnessed the Lovely Runner's Sol-Sunjae couple from the first row. There are still many people rooting for both of them. JYJ: I'm now filming my next work. I'm actually hesitant to talk about this because I'm worried I'll be considered as a traitor. JDY: It's just.. there are still so many people engaged in that work (Lovely Runner). JYJ: Yes, they are deeply immersed. And many people still tell me, "Please allow Sunjae and Sol to marry. You also want to see your grandchildren, right?" JDY: Because both of them are incredibly lovely. JYJ: Yes. Compared to other actors, Byeon Wooseok's eyes are very melo and moist. And.. I once asked him, "Have you ever been in love?", and he replied loudly, "Of course I have!" That was very cute, then after that (I added), "You still need to act with a raw touch even though you have experiences. You must truly express all of your feelings." And he did it in earnest. Thus, actor Byeon Wooseok deserves lots of praise for his efforts. He (BWS) is absolutely pure, very sincere, and unapologetically honest. If he is lying, it will show. I therefore ask him, "How can you act with this (character)?" JDY: There are a lot of interesting works, but what's really intriguing is that everyone's enthusiasm for Lovely Runner didn't fade even after the show finished. JYJ: In an interview, actor Byeon Wooseok stated that his ideal type is a woman who is small, petite, intelligent, and wise. And that is precisely the same as Hyeyoonie, so I told them, "You guys stop joking around, just date each other!" Every time it happened (I saw them acting), I told them to just date each other. Q: When you're all on set, you should have a rough feeling, right? JYJ: There were many sweet scenes between Sol and Sunjae, and they always needed to look at each other with those eyes. He was presumably shy and expressed his concern and confusion. I asked him, "Why don't you just like her for real?" "To like her for real?" he asked. And I replied, "Yes, just like her for real. "Try it!" I then said, "Try doing it with that look in your eyes," to which he answered, "Is it okay if I really like her? Can I actually do that?" I did not say anything else after that. They simply did what they wanted and conveyed it (their acting) in their own way. Then many people asked me if the two of them were really dating. "Are they still dating now?" JDY: There are still a lot of curious people. JYJ: Is it okay to say it? Can Mom really say it aloud?

ᴋᴇɴɴʏ

104,668 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

It's not just the birthrate, our best and brightest are looking for the exits too. If I hear another young, educated and talented fellow tell me they are done with Australia and are giving up, I am going to scream! It is hard to know exactly what to tell them at this point... It is the new pandemic… twenty-and-thirty-somethings - particularly men, with a small business or a great qualification - looking to give up and leave. They have lost hope. Sick of the scamming, lying, politicians; sick of being flogged and lectured at; sick of the taxes; and the so-called “aspiration for all” - whatever that means. Most of the young men I speak to haven’t been here long enough to know what I mean when I say: “I just want Australia back”. Unless you lived it, it is almost impossible to explain. I was just a kid when the bicentennial celebrations kicked off in ’88, but that is a good place to start. What a time to be an Australian. We were filled with hope. Men were men, and women were women… We were filled with pride in our common achievements and looked with hope to an even brighter tomorrow. Sure, people had a whinge from time to time, but they were never taken too seriously. We just shrugged, motored on and thought "she'll be right mate" - and it was. We took pride in our work because it meant more than just a paycheque and if we made something, it was Australian made. That meant it was the best quality. We had fun, and everyone had the opportunity to prosper at all levels. Labourers and lawyers alike could afford homes, cars and even holiday houses. It seems like a different world today as the ideologues, lobbyists and hacks redefined words like fairness and prosperity. Today it would seem it is fair that Coles and Woollies can charge just about whatever they want, and insurance companies can kick up their prices 40% per year, and nobody says a thing. Prosperity is being able to rent a 70 sqm Meriton apartment and a Netflix subscription. It’s all walking distance to public transport, so it could be worse… you could be out of work. Soon... They tax us on our income; they tax our assets; and the things we buy with money we already paid tax on. Sometimes they even add the GST on top of the excise. They have a rule, a regulation and a law for everything - and I mean everything. The nannies are working overtime, and they are just about the only part of the country that is experiencing productivity growth – they’ve got to rake in those fines after all. So, the boys are giving up. They’re planning to leave. To be replaced by more “bum-wiping” ‘skilled migrants’ flown in to help bolster the University fat-cats and NDIS scammers, as they put the ‘care economy’ into overdrive. Controversially, this is not all Albanese’s fault, it has been decades in the making, Albanese has just put the cherry on Morrison’s icing. Australia is indeed in freefall, in every way. It is hard to believe it was an accident. I think most of us can see that now, which is why less of us care what the major party talking heads have to say every day. We have almost reached the chapter in the story where people vote against the status-quo, and anyone who had anything to do with building it… because this growing despair among our young men is catching. Passed from child to parent, friend to friend, there’s a deep melancholy, and a pining for better times. Echoes from the first fleet, the gold rush, the ANZACs and the 80’s. World Expo. Sydney 2000. Our birthright. Our home. Our Australia. It still whispers if you listen. Time to scream at the idiots that ruined it with their guilt, their rules, their taxes, and their windmills – vote them all out. Start again. I just want Australia back.

Matthew Camenzuli

14,167 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Conor Neill: "Why smart people stay broke" "Took me a few years growing up to really learn this. In school, I did quite well in exams just through intelligence without having to do a lot of work. When I was young, I valued intelligence over action." He explains the trap smart people fall into: "One of the dangers for smart people, the smarter you are, the better your excuses. The more accomplished you are at talking yourself out of taking action. At proving to yourself that every action you could take is too small, too meaningless, and not worth it." Neill shares a quote from George Leonard, who brought jiu-jitsu from Japan to the US: "You cannot do everything. But you can do one thing. And another. And another. That's the way you make massive progress in life. Doing one thing and another and another." On his own YouTube channel: "Very often I sit down and think, these ideas aren't particularly deep or wise. But what makes this channel grow? What makes you come and connect? I guess the ideas aren't terrible. But I show up, and I share them. The fact that you show up and try and act, week after week, month after month, year after year, with a little bit of intelligence, you start to get better and better. You start to become more articulate." He emphasizes: "Even if the action is poor action, you're going to learn something from it. It's so easy to talk yourself out of action. But life rewards action, not intelligence. Not smarts in your brain, but action into the world." On discipline and measurement: "Until you measure something that matters, you do not know if you're disciplined." Neill shares a personal story: "My mentor would ask me to do some writing. Just write a few technical notes. Months passed. Years passed. I just wasn't making progress. So I hired a writing coach. For one year, I had a call every Wednesday. Every call would begin with him asking one question: how many words did you write this week?" The results were brutal: "He pushed me to measure how many words I wrote each day. Each week. Early on, it was very painful. It felt like I was putting a lot of energy into writing. But the actual number of words being produced. day after day, week after week, was very low." The realization: "It was only when I really got this measure, and made sure I looked at it each morning, each evening, each week, that I started to realize: so much of the effort was in my head and not turning into words on a page." Neill warns: "Be very careful in evaluating your discipline by whether you feel like you're making an effort. Because your mind will cheat you into believing you're being really busy. You're putting in a lot of effort. For me, it was brutal. The feeling in me was that I was putting a lot of time and energy into writing. But those early weeks, seeing that it resulted in so few words being written, that was the truth." He concludes: "Everything good in life happens when you're off the sofa and engaging with the world. Find a measure of something that matters. Pay attention to whether you're making progress on the actions that lead to that measure. Value action above thinking, or intending to take action."

Jaynit

49,488 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

This episode is about a once-in-a-generation mind working on what may be the most important problem in history. It's based on the new book The Infinity Machine: Demis Hassabis, DeepMind, and the Quest for Superintelligence by Sebastian Mallaby. (0:00) This is the most crazy, ferocious corporate battle that we've ever seen. (2:21) Intelligence is fundamental; it is the root of all else. (3:27) When Demis founded DeepMind almost every investor turned him away. (4:50) Demis is a missionary entrepreneur and out-of-the-box scientist who, through brilliance and extraordinary drive, emerges as the right person for a particular moment. (6:20) I sit at my desk at 2 a.m., and I feel like reality is staring at me, screaming at me, literally screaming at me, trying to tell me something if I could just listen hard enough. That's how I feel every day, so you can see why I'm trying to build AI. I've felt that since I was very young that there's a deep, deep mystery about what's going on here. (7:10) Demis, who blazed the trail followed by rivals, is decent and public-spirited and wants the best for humanity. He has ego; he is fearsomely competitive, but his goal is scientific enlightenment, not money or power. (9:49) Demis has an extraordinary level of determination, unlike pretty much anybody. Astonishing, incredible determination. That's his most defining characteristic: just unbelievable determination. He works, sleeps, eats, breathes the mission 24 hours a day to a degree that I haven't seen with other people. (10:48) There is no 50% mode in Demis. There is not even a 99% mode in Demis. There is only 100%. (14:39) The slightly warped way I took that was: how do you know you've done your best? The only way I could know is basically if I push myself to the point just before death, because that is literally when you have done your best. (19:07) When he signed up for a game he liked to feel that he could win. (20:44) He saw no reason not to start a company and so he did. (22:40) Demis on what losing feels like to him: It's like my soul is on fire. (25:34) Demis was an extreme case of an authentic entrepreneur, not a mercenary who starts with a desire to get rich from a startup then casts around for a plausible idea, but rather a missionary who feels compelled to work on a particular challenge then starts a company as a way of tackling it. (25:57) The good thing about missionaries is that they never quit. Even if they have to work around the clock and pay themselves nothing. They will keep obsessing about the problem. (26:08) Peter Thiel on Demis: “I always say that people aren't really entrepreneurs in the abstract, but there's maybe one great company that somebody has in them. It was Demis's destiny to build this one.” (26:30) "If you invent a breakthrough in artificial intelligence so machines can learn, that would be worth 10 Microsofts." — Bill Gates (32:09) We only wanted hardcore believers. We would go to conferences and tell people we are starting an AGI company. 80% of the people would roll their eyes at us, literally roll their eyes at us and turn around and walk away. We figured that this was a very efficient way to discover who we should be talking to. (32:50) Blessed are those who believed before there was any evidence. (34:17) The way Demis saw things, true general intelligence would make almost anything possible, surpassing the internet, the printing press, or even the industrial revolution in importance. (35:22) Elon had declared that humans needed to colonize Mars in case disaster struck Earth. Demis had countered that killer AI robots might be one such disaster, but that the AI could obviously follow humans to Mars if it wanted to. (36:25) Peter Thiel felt instinctively suspicious of a fellow chess player. A man who had spent his formative years mentally crushing opponents should be treated with caution, Thiel reckoned. (37:07) I'm talking about the biggest invention ever, and investors keep coming back to "Where's the widget?" and I'm like, "I'm going to revolutionize all widgets, so I can pick you a random widget if you want me to, but you obviously haven't got the point if you're asking me this." (37:42) He [Larry Page] was basically telling me, maybe you could build a company like Google, but it would take the best part of your career. If my real mission was to build AGI, then why don't I use all the resources that he's accumulated? I thought that was a pretty good argument. (38:50) Elon tries to buy DeepMind (42:33) Sam Altman emails Elon: "I've been thinking a lot about whether it's possible to stop humanity from developing AI. I think the answer is almost definitely not. If it's going to happen anyway, it seems like it would be good for someone other than Google to do it first." (43:18) If you have powerful people who are able to understand the impact of the technology, they're not just gonna sit on the sidelines. (44:08) Humans had not understood how little they had understood. (44:31) As Peter Thiel said of Demis, "Geniuses are seldom brilliant in a general way. They tend to be brilliantly suited to a particular mission." (46:50) Demis was far more original and far more of a contrarian than most of the self-identified contrarians of Silicon Valley. (48:11) When Demis solves something big, he doesn't pause to spend much time savoring the achievement. (48:49) You definitely can't crack a hard problem if the person leading the team thinks it's not possible. (54:05) This is my whole life's work. I have to do what's necessary. The mission is in me; it's infused in me. You can't separate it from me. (54:28) Demis's core theme is that money and power were not ends in themselves. They were a means to scientific knowledge.

David Senra

255,708 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

👽 Did Grusch See Footage of Live Aliens? 👽 "Grusch has seen evidence that will leave you slack-jawed when you hear it." ~JF 😶 What Left Congress Speechless, and Staffers with Their Eyes Popping Out of Their Heads? 😱 ~ "Examine biological evidence of living or deceased non-human intelligence." ~Burlison Proposed Legislation (I'm gonna break all of this down and give you my speculation on what left Fox with his jaw on the floor, members of Congress speechless, and their senior staffers with their eyes popping out of their heads.) ~ James Fox: " Probably about two weeks ago (late May), we were having meetings on The Hill with members of Congress. We brought in a PR firm, 42 West, and we were having a meeting with staff members, bipartisan. We had Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, Rep. Tim Burchett Press Office, Rep. Eric Burlison. We had a representative from Congressman Jared Moskowitz's office. We had a number of Chiefs of Staff (top staffer for a specific member of Congress), like, present." (Don't really know why they needed a public relations firm in attendance, but if it helps them with advice on how to handle this, so be it. Just know: it appears like members of that PR firm know what Grusch said, and we don't.) Fox: "And, I can't reveal what was said. I thought it was gonna be said at the actual event that we had yesterday (June 9th) in DC with Mr. Grusch." (Don't be mad at Fox for keeping his word to Grusch and not sharing what was said in that private meeting. But I don't blame people for being annoyed that Grusch shared this information six or so weeks ago and we still don't know what he said in that room.) Fox: "Then, what Mr. Grusch revealed to all of us, what he had seen with his own eyes, left the room speechless. It drew the oxygen out of the room. I looked at everybody in that room, and their eyeballs were popping out. My jaw was on the floor. Like, I simply couldn't believe what he'd seen with his own eyes. Like, I can't wait for it to come out. "So I asked Mr. Grusch today, 'Can I talk about what I heard?' And he's like, 'No, but I will be addressing it very soon.'" (Like I said, it's almost been one month now (June 12) since Fox said this, so what does "very soon" mean? Was Grusch supposed to share this information on CNN with Jake Tapper last week but it didn't happen because that interview was, reportedly (Fox told us), postponed?) Fox: "So that's where we stand right now. But I can tell you, Mr. Grusch has seen evidence that will leave you slack-jawed when you hear it. It's coming, it's coming." (We heard that Gruch's Op/Ed was coming soon and that was 2.5 years ago. It never happened. So, I don't blame people for being skeptical about this. If Grusch hasn't told us by this time next week, I propose someone (a member of Congress) who was in that room just tell us. That's fair, right? Total transparency from our elected representatives?) ~ Fox: "Mr. Grusch is legitimately concerned about his personal safety. He's coming out with it, I promise you, this is coming out. He assured me today that he will address this issue to the general public very soon, in the near future." (I'm glad Grusch told a room full of people what he saw, as that may offer him some protection from people who allegedly want him to stop talking.) Fox: "So I can't speak to what he's gonna say, but I'm just telling you from what I heard out of his mouth, sitting in an office of a member of Congress? And everybody (Fox laughs) in the room, you could have heard a pin drop." Clayton Morris: "Could you give us a hint? Is it related to craft? Can you maybe dance around it a little bit? I want to say, 'You're killing me, Smalls (laughs).'" Fox: "Yeah, so if you can imagine, if you know about 'Moment of Contact,' that involves captured non-human intelligent beings. Think about that for a minute. Think about that case. I heard it out of his mouth, and I can tell you, I was in the room. And I looked around the room, and I'm looking at these young, like, guys in their 20s, you know, the staff guys? And their eyeballs were popping out of their head. My jaw was on the floor. I couldn't believe it." (There's a reason why I included that quote (living or deceased non-human intelligence) from the new Burlison/Carson/Crane legislation at the top of this tweet: At the very least, I'm confident Grusch told them that he saw photos of dead non-human beings. Bodies. But what about evidence of LIVING non-humans, aka aliens of unknown origin? More on that at the end. Fox: "My jaw was on the floor. I couldn't believe it." (Would Grusch saying he saw photos of craft and dead non-humans have that type of effect on Fox? Seems like that's something he would have expected to hear.) ~ Fox: "It was an [out of] body experience when I heard that. But I can tell you...the impression I got, was that he felt a little more protected to talk about this because of President Trump's directive to release the files, and that this... Again, this is my speculation, okay? This is not what Mr. Grusch said. "I got the impression that he was much more relaxed - even though he was still not fully relaxed - because of President Trump's directive to release these files. And that it was something that he had seen during his official investigations just within the last few years." (Imagine how much more relaxed Grusch (and others) would feel if we had an actual Executive Order from Trump with strong language to protect whistleblowers?) Fox: "And that it...I think it had an extremely profound impact on his life when he saw this evidence that he described. Again I'm leaving it right there. I've been talking with Republicans, and they said if Joe Rogan tweets about this, that the President will hear it, And I can't overstate the significance of that." (Why hasn't Rogan already done that? No excuse. Fox has been on Rogan and I'm sure he has Joe's contact information. Make it happen.) Fox: "We need people. We're not asking for money, we're not asking to get on your show, we're just asking, Mr. President, please, as many people as possible, release the files that should not be associated with national security. And that's the alien or non-human sentient beings. That's it." ~~~ (I'm going to speculate on what Grusch may have said in that room.) Fox: "I think it had an extremely profound impact on [Grusch's] life when he saw this evidence that he described." (Grusch has said he started out as a skeptic when he started looking into this. If he was shown what he felt were photos of non-human bodies, I think that might be enough to have an, "extremely profound impact on his life." Depending on exactly what those photos showed, of course.) In "Moment of Contact," Eric Davis had this exchange with Fox: James Fox: "Put me wherever you were when you got to see photographs of crash retrieval and documents. What did that feel like?" Dr. Eric Davis: "That was startling, when I actually see recorded evidence with my own eyes. Photographs, reports, and whatnot. That took it to a higher level, that kicked it up several notches of reality. And that made it very clear that this reality is very hard, very physical, very real. "And this type of evidence, you can't come by in the open literature, it's not public, it's classified. And I can't discuss what it was, but I can tell you, yeah, it's a crash retrieval, there's a craft, and there's alien bodies. That's all I can say about it." Fox: "You swear on your life that you saw those pictures?" Davis: "Oh, I swear on my life, and everybody's...my children's life, so (laughs). Yeah, I'm absolutely telling you the truth. I saw the evidence, and it's stark! I can't tell you the exact number, because it's classified, but I'll just say, there's a few dozen total retrievals." Full exchange with video... ~~~ As I said in my other post, I think Davis, Semivan, Puthoff, Kelleher, Grusch, Lacatski, Stratton, aka The AAWSAP Gang (I just made that up), may have seen the same evidence of photos and reports. Has Grusch seen more than that? I don't know. In 2025, Davis said this... Burlison: "Can you comment on whatever species have been piloting these craft? Are they largish? Are they multiple species? What was their size, and how many are usually on a craft?" Davis: "They're typically the multiple species people are familiar with. The Greys, the Nordics. People have talked about Reptilians and Insectoids. It's not that they're Reptilian or Insectoid, it's that they resemble, to the participant, a reptile, or insect type. A humanoid, because they have this...a hand, and four limbs, and a torso, so..." Burlison: "Large? Small?" Davis: "Human size, human scale." Burlison: "How many are in a crew?" Davis: "Well, the group, well, the Greys I'm familiar with from investigating the crash at Corona, which is misnamed the crash at Roswell. It's not the crash at Roswell, it's the crash at Corona, New Mexico. Those were Greys, those were four-foot tall. And the Nordics are typically human-sized, probably...I've heard five, six-feet tall. And same with the people who mislabel Reptilian and Insectoid. They're roughly that height, too. I haven't heard anything about anything seven or eight feet or nine-foot tall, of that nature." Full post with video... ~ And this past Sunday, Davis said this to The Good Trouble Show with Matt Ford... Davis: "I can say to you guys that there are a minimum of four different alien species. The credibility of that ranges on the spectrum from no credibility to high credibility. The high credibility is the classified part." Full post: My Final Thoughts (Based on everything Davis has shared, it seems he saw classified photos of what appeared to him to be non-human craft and photos that appeared to show dead non-humans (bodies) with enough detail that he could see that some resembled reptiles and others resembled insects. Were there also photos of Greys and beings that looked human (Nordic)? I don't know. These images of non-humans would fall into what Davis deemed "high credibility" and "the classified part.") Davis: "I saw the evidence, and it's stark!" (If Davis saw close-up photos that showed details of beings that looked like Reptilians and Mantids, I'd say that qualifies as stark!) Back to what Fox said... Fox: "Then, what Mr. Grusch revealed to all of us, what he had seen with his own eyes, left the room speechless. It drew the oxygen out of the room. I looked at everybody in that room, and their eyeballs were popping out. My jaw was on the floor. Like, I simply couldn't believe what he'd seen with his own eyes." (I think what caused that reaction was Grusch describing seeing close-up photos of different types of non-human beings. Maybe.) However, Fox also said this: "...if you can imagine, if you know about 'Moment of Contact,' that involves captured non-human intelligent beings (This is the Varginha, Brazil case. ~Joe). Think about that for a minute. Think about that case. I heard it out of his mouth, and I can tell you, I was in the room." (The biggest CLAIM in that film and from that case is that a live, non-human being was captured and that Dr. Italo saw video of it, and then stood next to it for a few minutes when it was in the hospital, in a bed, being cared for by another doctor. Did Grusch say he saw evidence (photos or videos) of a live being that appeared to be non-human? Joe Rogan asked him that in his November 2023 interview... Grusch: "Once you realize the phenomenon's real, then you realize we've recovered artifacts and, you know, biologics or, you know, dead pilots, if you will, even though it's kind of creepy to think about in your world view. You don't think they were ever, you know, alive sometimes, too, right? And I'll leave it at that, only because, you know, that is something the President and his cabinet need to disclose this in a controlled manner." (He was either hinting that he's seen them alive or that them being alive and on this planet is a huge deal and not his responsibility to announce. I think it's the latter.) Rogan: "Are there discussions of interactions with live beings?" Grusch: "Uhh, there was some water-cooler talk about that kind of thing." Rogan: "But that's it?" Grusch: "But, you know, I don't even wanna get into it because it's like, uh, there was some details provided to me but it's like, it's secondary and I don't know if that's like, the telephone game and I don't know if it was hyperbolized in any way...um, you know, in the break room, so to speak. So I just... I'm so anal about making sure what I say is accurate...I don't, you know, I don't know." (Based on what he said there, it seems like he has NOT seen any evidence of live beings. If he now comes out and says that he has, it will seem like a flip flop. So, I'm gonna go with Grusch said he saw photos of non-human bodies and they were of the different types/species that Dr. Eric Davis referenced. One more flashback to what Davis said in that public, congressional briefing in May of 2025.) Davis: "It's not that they're Reptilian or Insectoid, it's that they resemble, to the participant, a reptile, or insect type." (That sounds like someone who has seen exactly what they look like, via photos.) Final point... "Examine biological evidence of living or deceased non-human intelligence." ~Burlison Proposed Legislation (That language was in the original UAPD Disclosure Act co-sponsored by Senators Schumer and Rounds, and four other senators. Why put that language in there if you haven't heard credible reports of living or deceased (bodies) non-human intelligence? Are there stories of living, non-humans on this planet? Yes, and I'll leave you with one of them.) ) (Just to make it clear: I think Grusch will say that he saw clear photos of different types of non-human bodies and some looked like reptiles and others looked like insects. It would be amazing to hear Grusch say he saw video or film of living beings, but I don't expect that. However...this still bothers me... Would Grusch describing seeing photos of craft and different kinds of dead aliens leave veteran-of-the-UFO-field, James Fox, with his jaw on the floor? I guess we're gonna see. And hopefully soon.)

Joe Murgia

204,314 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

"Tell us this isn't true." "They had a live being out [near Area 51]." "There were human experiments that went on." 👽🛸 Roswell: A Non-Human Craft or a Darker Secret? 🤫😶 (Transcript is shorter than clip. I don't have room to type more in this post so I'll just wait for replies.) ~ Lex Fridman: "In your book on 'Area 51,' you propose an explanation that I think some people have criticized, at the very end. That this might have been a disinformation campaign from, I guess, Stalin, that the Roswell incident was a remotely-piloted plane with a quote 'grotesque, child-sized aviator.' Just looking back at all that now, years later, what's the probability that it's true? What's the probability it's not?" Annie Jacobsen: (AJ): "So, you know, I've never revealed who that source is." Lex: "Yes." AJ: "You know that? Want me to tell you?" Lex: "Okay, who was the source?" AJ: "So, before I say anything on that, let me speak to the question that you asked, right? So, you asked me, 'What's the probability that that is still standing as an idea, 12, 13, 14 years later,' right? So, I continued to work with that source for years, afterwards. We talked about this. Look, I mean, his whole family knew it was him. And I knew his family because I was an integral part of, you know, I was at his house, met all his kids, grandkids." Lex: "And we should say, the source is the main expert advisor behind the story that it was. Maybe you can explain what the story is that your report in the book, that it was a disinformation campaign created by Stalin to cause mass hysteria in the United States. The very kind that we've been speaking about with the CIA and so on." AJ: "Yes! Predicated on the narrative of the 'War of the Worlds,' right? And the 'War of the Worlds,' when it was a radio program in the United States, made people go crazy. 'Oh, my God, we're being invaded by aliens!' Well, the government was always interested in the story and Joseph Stalin was, too. We know that from declassified documents, right? "And so, the source told me that the reason for this program, and that the real Roswell crash remains, were in fact, it was a black-propaganda hoax infiltrated, you know, or rather, predicated at this idea that you were gonna overwhelm America's early-warning, air-defense system, cause mayhem and maybe be able to attack the United States. That was the plan. And Stalin was also messing with the United States, messing with Truman, who sort of, you know, turned his back on him, right? At Potsdam. "And so, this idea, and the reason that the source is important... And unlike, you know, a lot of people, 'I saw this, I saw that, I learned that.' Was, according to the source, once it was determined that this was a hoax and that Stalin was able to get a craft over the United States, and it crashed. And it had, you know, people inside of it, they were people that were sort of deformed and meant...surgically altered to look like aliens. "The United States government decided that it needed to know what on earth that was all about, and if it was possible for us to have the same program. This, according to this source, right? And so, it sounds preposterous, and if it was just someone saying, 'I...,' you might say, 'Well, it's ridiculous, get them onto another subject.' But, the difference was, is this source, who was very well placed, and friends with all of the other 75 people, you know, told me this as a confession, right? A real, tearful confession, because what he said is he was involved in the American program to do the same thing. And people died, because there were human experiments that went on." "And I write about this in the last 12 pages of 'Area 51.' It was an explosive, you know, revelation, and I felt very confident in writing this because the source wanted it written. Why? Because he said, 'I'm dedicated to my country. I know about being committed to national security, and this kind of thing must never happen. And if you give people too much power, they will take advantage of it.' And he wanted it on the record. "And his wife of 60 years did not know until after the book published. Nor did His children, okay? So, after the book published, I was called to his house and sat there with his family. And they said, 'Tell us this isn't true.' And he said, 'It is true,' right? (We need a tape of this confession or...for his family to confirm they heard this from him.) AJ: "Now that source is Al O'Donnell, who is the nuclear-weapons engineer who armed, wired and fired 186 nuclear weapons, okay? So if you wanna talk about someone..." Lex: "Woooooow." AJ: "You're the first person I've told that on the record, but it's kind of about time." Lex: "Woooooow. Well, you received a lot of criticism over this story, and it confused me why, because it's...given the context of everything you've described with the CIA and other intelligence agencies, it is reasonable that such action would be taken. AJ: "And, the source is extraordinarily credible, right? If you wanted to take the position, 'Well, that person isn't very reliable,' then you have to ask yourself, 'Why did they have Top-Secret clearances that are higher than any in the United States whatsoever?' Because he was responsible for arming nuclear bombs. He was called the trigger man. "And by the way, he told me that I could tell the world who he was. There's a lot of details that are really dark, involving that program. And when is it appropriate, right? Well, it feels appropriate now. First of all, because you and I have been talking for several hours. So this is what is truly a long-form conversation and it's the outcome of, you know, a very long time of my reporting, and also being judicious about what, you know, closing the loop on that, right? Because I do think it's important for people to know that sources have revelations." Lex: "And, like you said, the programs, both on the Soviet side, and the American side, conflicting, I think's the term we used previously? Ethically, morally, on all fronts. People have done some horrible things in the name of security. In your book, 'Surprise, Kill Vanish,' you write about the CIA." ~~~ Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "So, today, I want to focus on a really important story that you once told me, that has never been told all the way [from the] beginning, to all the way to the end. And I just think it's just so cool we get to do this today. So, the question I want to ask is: After you got hooked on the UFO thing, with Bob Lazar, and you as a journalist said, 'I'm gonna start getting sources.' Like, 12 people coming at you, people shut down by the government. You can tell that. But you finally, finally got to a credible individual who had direct, firsthand knowledge about UFOs, exploitation, reverse engineering, and beings. And, oh my God, I want the world to hear this story. Tell us the story." George Knapp: "I've shared some of it in very broad strokes over the years- little bits and pieces of it - without ever actually referencing, in my statements, the guy the source. But this will be the first time I've told it in totality. "And it takes me back to when I first started in this. It's 1989 KLAS-TV, we put together, we spent eight months working on this project called 'UFOs: The Best Evidence.' Nine-part series. It airs on television, it's the biggest thing that's ever been produced for local TV, to this date, and still. "And, along the way, as I'm trying to find...telling the story about Bob Lazar, and his allegations about what was out there at S-4, near Area 51 - recovered discs, alien technology being reverse engineered - I'm looking for people who would support that. And I found about two dozen people, witnesses who had worked out there, who had seen bits and pieces, who could corroborate parts of what Bob had said about these kinds of craft being out there in the Nevada desert. But there wasn't anybody big picture who knew as much as Lazar claimed to have known, so I was still looking for them. "In 1990, I started working on a follow-up series to Best Evidence, looking for new witnesses. And I got a hint from an elected official that I had known, I'd covered him in Nevada politics. He says, 'You know, you should talk to my dad one of these days.' 'Your dad?' 'Yeah.' And he told me what the dad's name was and what he had done, what job he had had. And I said, 'Ah.' So I started stalking the guy. I just started showing up at events where I knew he would be. One of those events was a reunion for employees of EG&G." Corbell (JC): "So I'm assuming that this source was working within EG&G in some capacity, which is, by the way, who Bob [Lazar] said, hired him to go out to Site-4, S-4 at Area 51. So you're like, 'Okay, I can now find out if this is bullshit, or if there's an element of truth to it.' Do I have that right?" Knapp (GK): "Pretty much correct, yeah. So, I'm looking for someone whose credentials are impeccable. Unlike Bob, whose credentials were questioned, and people still attack him on where he went to school and where he worked, and was he at Los Alamos? This guy is documentable. There's a paper trail of where he worked, what he did. There's no question that he was in a position to know. He was the first general manager of EG&G in Nevada. His name was Al O'Donnell, and he has a prominent family. "When I heard that EG&G was having a reunion, I went there. We took a camera [and I figured], 'This is a great chance to get him on camera before I start asking him the questions I really want to ask.'" JC: "And when you say he is a general manager, like, does that give him certain roles and responsibilities that would give him insight? Like, he's not a secretary, so what does that mean?" GK: "He's the boss. He was the boss of the Nevada office. And I'll tell you a little bit about EG&G. So, it was a company that was created in Boston, right around the end of World War Two. Al O'Donnell had been in the Navy, serving during the war. He got out of the Navy while the war was still underway and went to work for a company called Raytheon, which became this massive, gigantic defense contractor that's still around today, still in Nevada in fact." JC: Yeah, they've got a big connection to the UFO topic, right? But, when you say Boston, like, where in Boston was it created?" GK: "Well, MIT is where the company was born. Edgerton, Germeshausen and Grier were the three guys, the EG&G in that. They were at MIT. Scientists, engineers, they created this company there. And Al O'Donnell, who had been working for Raytheon, working on the Manhattan Project. He didn't know he was working on the Manhattan Project, but they were building these devices, complex triggers, that allowed them to detonate nuclear weapons. He learned later what he was doing was part of the Manhattan Project. "He goes to MIT, starts working with EG&G. Their company in those days had, I think, 15 employees, Al said. So it was a very small startup. But it suddenly exploded because the American atomic program exploded in those years. In 1950, Harry Truman decides that we need a permanent, nuclear testing site somewhere in the continental U.S., so they looked at a bunch of places, and they settled on Nevada. "Prior to that, Al O'Donnell had been sent out to the Pacific. They had five of these massive, atomic bomb tests out in the Pacific, and they decided to move it into a continental U.S. location and Nevada's Test Site - it was called the Nevada Test Site in those days - was chosen. Al O'Donnell leads the exodus from Boston, out to Nevada. They start hiring engineers and scientists, physicists and other security, spies." JC: "What are they working on at this time when they make that move?" GK: "Atomic bombs. They're building, testing atomic bombs. EG&G was a really precise organization that was created in order to detonate, measure and photograph atomic weapons. If you look in the history of photography, you'll see some of these amazing photos that they took of, you know, water drops dropping in water and...they're pretty famous shots because of these cameras that they developed. And it was perfect for use and testing atomic weapons and documenting what the process was. "So, EG&G comes out to Las Vegas, they are the managers of the Nevada Test Site. They, subsequently, years later, become the managers of Area 51 when it opens in 1955. So Al O'Donnell is the top guy. He oversees the nuclear testing program out there, manages it for EG&G, works with the Atomic Energy Commission. He has a Top-Secret security clearance and he can go anywhere and see anything. There's, basically, no restrictions, nothing that is outside of his ability to find out and see." JC: "So, this is an impeccable resume. This is somebody who was in position to know, and would know if someone like Bob Lazar was telling the truth or not telling the truth. I find it, personally, humorous that EG&G was, its genesis, its seed, came from MIT, right?" GK: "So, late 1990 or early 1991, I'd have to look up the dates. But somewhere in there is this event, this EG&G reunion. I go there, we got a camera, I interview Al O'Donnell, introduce myself, and say, 'Hey, I'm really interested in this, can we continue this conversation?' So he invites me to his home. He says, 'Come on over, we'll arrange to come over on a Saturday or something. We'll sit down, I'll go through my scrapbooks and show you some documents and memorabilia and photos from that era.' I was like, 'Great.' "So I go to his house and meet this wife. And we sit down, he opens up these big scrapbooks, and he starts showing me all the stuff that he had done. Photos that had been taken out in the proximity of these gigantic nuclear tests. They had great stories about the camaraderie that developed among the engineers and scientists. And he's going through all this stuff and showing me all this. And I love it, I loved every bit of it. I've never had a bad day at the Nevada Test Site, by the way. Every time I've gone out there to do a story, it's just a terrific way to spend some time." JC: "Secrets should be kept, secrets are kept, and you are a proponent of keeping secrets when it's that kind of thing." GK: "Sure, absolutely. And I respected the boundaries that they set up for us in doing these kinds of stories. So I did go out to the Nevada Test Site a lot over the next 40 years or so and put together a lot of different stories. And they knew of my interest in that area that's just outside what the Nevada Test Site, a place called Area 51. In 1955, Area 51 was, basically, created and EG&G got the contract to manage Area 51, and had kept it for the next 30, 35 years. So, whatever went on out there, they had an inside knowledge of what was going on." JC: "So, you meet this guy, Al O'Donnell, for the first time when he's at this public thing. You probably say something like, 'Your son told me to talk to you,' or something. Whatever. It ends up, he invites you to his home, and you're going through scrapbooks, and he's showing you all this atomic testing stuff that he was involved in. GK: "Yeah, and I'm telling him, 'Boy, this is really interesting. That's fascinating. I'd love to do a story on it.' And after we're there for maybe two hours, he closes this one big scrapbook and he goes, 'You're not here to talk about this, are ya?' I said, 'Well, not exactly.' He says, 'I know what you're here to talk about. I know what you want to ask about.' And right about that point, his wife walks in and she says, 'Don't start telling them that stuff! Don't even tell him!' And he kind of joked about it.' JC: "What were you there to talk about?" GK: "UFOs, UFOs. Area 51, Bob Lazar, crashed saucers, reverse engineering, to see if he had any knowledge of that, because I'd been led to believe that he did. So he closes that book and he says, 'We'll have we'll get together another time and we'll talk about it in private.' And over the course of the next two years or so, he and I would meet at coffee shops and talk about it. And I would ask him questions, and really, it was like pulling teeth. He wanted to tell me stuff but he made me work at it." (AJ says his family was there for the confession. Knapp has over two years of meetings with him. A bit confusing.) GK: "And the condition was, I couldn't take any notes. I couldn't record it, I couldn't take any notes. So each time I'd meet with him, I'd rush back to my car and start scribbling notes on pieces of paper so I'd remember everything that he said. And the story that he told me, that evolved over those couple of years was pretty fantastic. "He said that they did have a flying saucer that had been recovered from New Mexico. I think he indicated that it had been taken from New Mexico to Wright Patterson Air Force Base, which is... He never said Roswell, but I think it was the Roswell incident is what he [was] talking about. And it confirmed some of the details about what we know, likely, happened with the Roswell craft." JC: "When he's telling you, 'We have recovered a craft,' did he say it like, this is secret, don't tell anybody?" GK: "Yeah, it was just for my knowledge, my background and information. It wasn't a story I could do then. We were negotiating about how, or when, or if I could ever use that information or make it public. He told me the details about this craft. He said that it had been stored at Indian Springs. Indian Springs is an Air Force Base that's been there for a long time. It's now called Creech. Indian Springs existed before Area 51 was made. "But he says it was there, they kept it there. It might have been in an underground facility, I'm not quite sure. But then when Area 51, after it opened in 1955, they moved it to an adjacent facility. He didn't say it was S-4, he didn't say it was Papoose, but I think that's what he's talking about. Papoose Lake is where Bob Lazar said he worked, and where they had built nine hangars underground, disguised to look like the desert, and where they had other recovered craft. "He says they worked on this recovered craft, reverse engineering, trying to figure out how it worked, who built it. Whether or not they could duplicate the technology because, apparently, they thought this was pretty advanced, and they'd like to be able to build more of 'em. "And he says it was a very closed program, very small. It was only, I think, five of them that were aware of it, at least in the early stages, that were working on this project. And it was very hush hush, and they didn't share it with anybody else in the company, or anybody else in the area, or the military. They just kept it to themselves. "So, after we're having these meetings - and I go back and write down all these notes and stuff, details about what he had shared with me - we have another meeting at a coffee shop, and I said, 'Well gosh, you know, aren't you worried that it would get out, that the word would get out?' "And he says to me, 'We were worried It would get out?' That's right. 'I mean, what...it? What do you mean, it?' It. Meaning a live being, they had a live being out there. I go, 'You had a live being, an alien as well?' [O'Donnell said], 'Tell you the truth, we didn't know what it was.' I said, 'You know, maybe it came from millions of miles away, out in space, and you're keeping it in a cage near Area 51?' He said, 'To tell you the truth, we couldn't communicate with it in the beginning. We didn't know what it was, we didn't know where it was from, and we didn't know what to do with it.'" JC: "When Al O'Donnell says to you, 'We had a live alien, a being,' obviously from another world, what was your feeling?" GK: "Well, I was overwhelmed, because it was, in effect, confirmation of things that I had come to believe, because of the reporting we'd already done. And then the evidence of cover ups and lies that had been told to the public. Here's this guy in a high position, with a high security clearance, telling me that it was true. That they really did have a craft and they had a being. "My second feeling was, one of overwhelming sadness for the being, whatever it was, you know, that was kept out there. I asked him, you know, what had happened to it, what became of it? He says, 'I don't know. I don't know whatever happened to it.' But it was out there for a while, alive, and eventually they figured out a way to communicate with it. "And so I asked him, 'Well, what did it look like?' And he made me guess, as he did with all these questions. He made me guess. He said, 'Well, it kinda looks like a certain political candidate.' I said, 'Well, who? A political candidate? Who?' And at the time, Ross Perot was running for president. He said, 'It looks like Ross Perot. A little skinny guy with a big ears and tiny head.' Not a classic Gray-looking alien, but a very odd-looking creature with really big ears, that looked like Ross Perot. And I laughed. "And so we had these conversations for a while, and I was blown away by the information that he shared. I took all these notes. I was hoping that someday, I might be able to get the information out. And I asked him, 'Look, you're getting up there in age. If I can't record something with you, could you record a statement to the effect of telling me the story on camera, and then when you pass on, I can have the tape?' And he said, 'Yeah,' he would do it." JC: "You know, look, I've heard a lot of wild stories that I can't verify. A guy's telling you something, and you get a sense as a journalist, when you go down a road with somebody, and you take your time and you vet it... Did you feel...I mean, is there any world where he's trying to f*ck with ya? Or is there a world where he's trying to, you know, dissuade...kind of put crazy information into your brain? Like, how did you feel when he was telling you this? Was he like, straight with you?" GK: "Yeah, he was very straightforward. And again, this was not information he was giving up, willingly. I mean, I had to really dig and coax and arm twist to get him to cough things up. And it was very slow-going over about a two-year period, maybe a little bit longer. And I know that this...you always have to be wary of people with different agendas and people that just make stuff up. I didn't get that sense from him because of his standing in the community. He had shared this story with members of his own family." JC: "And that's why they came to you, is because they kind of [gave] you a tip. And these members of his family, they're serious people, too." GK: "Yeah. One of his sons is an FBI agent, or was, he's passed on now. One was an elected official in Nevada. That was the one that gave me the tip." JC: So, I just want to nail this [down] so I understand. You were approached because he had shared this with his family, privately, and then you had to kind of coax to get through to him about the story?" GK: "Right." JC: "I think that's important because look, these things don't happen, like, people [don't] just come to us and say, you know, crazy stuff, and we're like, 'Hh, yeah, cool. Sounds good.' Like, the dynamic of that, socially, as a journalist, like getting in there, taking time. You know, we have to verify if what he said is true, and there are some major bombs coming about that. But it's like, that process is so important. "So here you are, you're sitting with him, he tells you now, they have a live alien. And you felt sad because you're an animal-rights activist, you love animals. I know with your cats at home and you've done horse stories and all the stories about like, the inhumane stuff to animals. So it made you personally sad, makes me sad, too now thinking about it." GK: Yeah. Well, we had these series of meetings, and then the last time we met, after he'd agreed to go ahead and record a tape - and give it to me after making an arrangement so I got it after he passed on - he said that he had been told to not talk to me anymore. He said he had been given a warning [and] it was not a good idea for him to talk to me any more about anything. Not just that topic, but anything." JC: "Well, who knows that you're talking? Who would warn him?" GK: "I don't know. I don't know. But you recall, back in those days, there was surveillance. We had our phones tapped at KLAS-TV. There were guys following us around. Me, Bob Lazar, Gene Huff, maybe Robert Bigelow." JC: "People were also coming to your news station, OSI. And they would come in and try to like, get to you and then they'd show you their card...and take it back. And you know your phones are tapped. So it's like, because of this story, all of a sudden you're on high alert. So, anybody could have called him, been watching you, had meetings with the guy. So what you're saying is one day he just said, 'I can't...I'm not allowed to talk to you any more.'" GK: "Yeah, I've been told not to talk to you anymore. I've been told not to."

Joe Murgia

101,578 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

There is a version of this story happening right now, less than a mile from wherever you're sitting, and you will never hear about it. No headline. No siren. No witness. Just an animal, alone, learning the hardest lesson there is — that the world does not owe you anything, not even a glance. I want to tell you what nobody tells you about that moment. Not the cute part. Not the part that gets stitched into a 40-second clip with music over it. The part before. The part that makes the "after" mean anything at all. Because right now, somewhere, there's a creature deciding whether it's worth trusting a human again. And the answer it lands on depends entirely on something almost nobody is willing to give: three uninterrupted seconds of attention from a stranger who has every reason to keep walking. Most people don't. Let's talk about why. — There are an estimated 200 million stray dogs alive on this planet right now. Not homeless in the sentimental, Instagram-caption sense. Homeless in the literal, biological, every-single-day-is-a-negotiation-with-death sense. No steady food. No shelter from freezing nights. No one who notices if they don't show up tomorrow. Most of them will never be rescued. Most of them will never be fed by the same hand twice. Most of them will live an entire life — birth to death — without a single moment of being chosen. Sit with that for a second, because the internet has trained us not to. We've turned "sad dog content" into a genre. A scroll-past category. Thumbnail of a skinny animal, sad music, three seconds of your attention, then gone — replaced instantly by a recipe video or a guy ranking fast food fries. The tragedy became wallpaper. That's not a criticism of you. It's what happens to any horror once it becomes ambient. Once it becomes background noise, it stops registering as an emergency, even though it still is one. So when I tell you this story is different, I need you to actually believe me, because I know exactly how many times you've heard that before. — Here's the part that never makes it into the caption: rescuing a street animal is not a moment. It's a negotiation, and the animal is not on your side yet. An abandoned or feral dog does not see a human crouching down with food as "help." It sees a predator closing distance. Every ounce of its nervous system is screaming the same instruction that's kept it alive this long — don't trust anything that walks on two legs, because the last few times you did, it went badly. That fear isn't irrational. It's earned. Somewhere in that animal's short, brutal life, a hand reached toward it and didn't mean kindness. Maybe it was a rock. Maybe it was a boot. Maybe it was just indifference, which after enough repetition starts to feel like the same thing. So when someone finally does kneel down with something to offer, the dog's brain doesn't know the difference — not yet. It runs the same threat calculation it always runs. Flinch. Freeze. Calculate the fastest route away. That's not stubbornness. That's survival software running exactly as designed. Which is why the people who actually manage to close that gap are doing something most of us radically underestimate. They're not performing an act of cuteness for a camera. They're overriding a nervous system that has been trained, through repeated trauma, to treat them as the enemy — using nothing but patience, stillness, and time they didn't have to spend. That's the real skill in every one of these videos you've ever watched. Not the rescue itself. The waiting before it. — I think about the psychology of that first contact a lot, because it explains almost everything about why some rescues "take" and others don't. There's a very specific sequence that has to happen, in order, or the whole thing collapses: First, the animal has to notice you without immediately fleeing. That alone can take minutes of someone crouched low, not making eye contact, letting the dog control the distance. Then it has to associate your presence with something other than danger — usually food, but sometimes just the absence of a threat, which for a street animal is its own kind of gift. Then, and only then, does it consider closing the distance itself. Not because you pulled it in. Because it chose to. That third step is everything. A rescue built on force — grabbing, cornering, dragging — produces an animal that complies out of exhaustion, not trust. It might come home with you, but it will flinch at every sudden movement for months, maybe years, maybe forever. A rescue built on the animal's own decision to close the gap produces something completely different. It produces a dog that, weeks later, will run toward the sound of your voice instead of away from it. The difference between those two outcomes is invisible in a ten-second clip. It's the difference between a dog that tolerates you and a dog that loves you. And it's decided entirely in that first excruciating window where nothing dramatic is happening at all — just a human staying still long enough for fear to lose its grip. — Here's an uncomfortable truth: most people who say they'd "totally rescue a stray if they saw one" wouldn't. Not because they're bad people. Because rescuing an animal off the street is inconvenient in a hundred small ways nobody plans for. You need time you didn't budget for your day. You need to not be squeamish about proximity to something that might be injured, matted, sick, or all three. You need somewhere to actually take it — which, if you don't already have a plan, is a bigger logistical problem than people assume. You need money for a vet visit that could reveal something expensive. You need to be willing to have your entire schedule hijacked by a creature that has no way of explaining what's wrong with it. Most people, faced with all of that, in real time, standing on a real sidewalk, keep walking. Not out of cruelty. Out of the same instinct that makes all of us protect our own bandwidth. We tell ourselves someone else will handle it. We tell ourselves it looked fine, probably. We tell ourselves this isn't our emergency to fix. And then some people don't do that. Some people stop. I don't think stopping makes someone a hero in the way that word gets thrown around online. I think it just means, in that specific moment, their instinct to intervene beat their instinct to protect their own convenience. That's rarer than it should be. It's also learnable — which is the actual point, if you're paying attention. — Let's talk about what happens after the rescue, because this is the part almost every viral clip skips entirely, and it's the part that actually determines whether the story has a happy ending or just a happy thumbnail. An animal that has spent its life on the street doesn't walk into a house and understand it's safe now. Safety isn't something you can announce. It has to be proven, repeatedly, over weeks, in a hundred small ways that never make it into a highlight reel. It has to learn that a raised hand isn't a threat. That a closed door isn't a trap. That footsteps approaching while it's eating don't mean the food is about to be taken away. That being touched doesn't have a catch. Every one of those lessons has to be relearned from zero, because everything this animal knew before told it the opposite. There's a phase rescuers talk about — sometimes called the "decompression period" — where a newly rescued animal essentially goes quiet. Not calm. Shut down. It's not trust yet. It's shock wearing the costume of calm. The real test comes weeks later, when the shock wears off and the animal's actual personality starts to surface for the first time — sometimes for the first time in its entire life. That's when you find out who they really are underneath the survival mode. That's the moment that actually matters, and it's almost never the moment that gets filmed. — I keep coming back to one specific detail that I think explains why stories like this hit people so much harder than almost any other kind of content on this entire platform. It's not the suffering. Suffering alone doesn't make people watch — it makes people scroll past, because suffering with no resolution just feels like being handed a weight you can't put down. What makes people stop, rewatch, send it to three friends, is the moment the weight lifts. The moment you can physically see, in real time, an animal recalibrate its entire understanding of what humans are capable of. That recalibration is not subtle if you know what you're looking at. There's a specific shift in body language — the tail that was tucked starts to loosen. The ears that were pinned back start to lift. The distance the animal maintains on its own starts shrinking, inch by inch, on its own timeline, not yours. And then, somewhere in there, without any single dramatic moment you could point to, the animal stops behaving like something that's surviving you and starts behaving like something that belongs with you. That transition — from surviving to belonging — is, I'd argue, one of the most purely satisfying things a human being can watch. It taps into something almost pre-verbal. We recognize it as proof that broken trust is repairable. That's not really a story about a dog. That's a story we need to believe is true about everything. — There's also a version of this that's uncomfortable to say out loud, so I'll just say it. A lot of us watch these videos because we're looking for evidence that gentleness still works. That patience still pays off. That you can meet something scared and defensive with nothing but calm and consistency, and eventually it softens. In a year where everyone's nervous system feels a little bit like that street dog — flinching at things that aren't actually threats anymore, bracing out of habit, trusting slowly if at all — watching an animal get talked down from that exact state, successfully, by another living thing that simply refused to give up on it, hits something that a lot of us are quietly starving for. I'm not saying that to be poetic. I'm saying it because I think it's the actual, unspoken reason this kind of footage travels the way it does. It's not really about the dog. The dog is just the vehicle. What people are actually responding to is proof — visual, undeniable, twenty-seconds-long proof — that damage isn't necessarily permanent. That the right kind of patience can undo things that looked unfixable. We don't get a lot of proof of that in our actual lives. So we take it where we can find it. — Something else worth saying: not every rescue attempt works. Not every stray lets you close the distance. Some run and keep running. Some bite out of pure terror, not malice, and the person who was trying to help walks away injured and the animal walks away just as scared as before, now with one more reason to distrust the next hand that reaches out. I bring this up because I don't want to romanticize this into something that always goes right, because that's not honest, and it undersells how much genuine skill and restraint it takes when it does go right. The rescues that actually succeed are not lucky accidents. They're the result of someone reading an animal's body language correctly in real time, knowing exactly when to advance and when to freeze, when to make themselves smaller and less threatening, when to simply wait it out instead of forcing contact. That's not something you can fake for a camera. Animals — especially traumatized ones — are remarkably good at detecting performance versus genuine calm. They can tell the difference between someone projecting patience and someone who has actually run out of urgency. The ones who succeed at this over and over aren't lucky. They've built an actual, specific skill set around reading fear and dismantling it piece by piece, without ever forcing the process. — I want to talk for a second about the moment right before everything changes, because it's the part that, if you've never watched it happen, you genuinely cannot imagine correctly in your head. It is not dramatic. That's the first surprise. There's no swelling music in real life. There's no slow-motion. It's usually just a long, quiet stretch of almost nothing — a person sitting still, at a distance, doing something deliberately boring, like looking at their phone or eating something themselves, specifically so the animal doesn't feel cornered by direct attention. And then, at some point that you almost miss if you blink, the animal takes one step closer that it didn't have to take. That one step is the entire story. Everything before it was setup. Everything after it is consequence. But that one specific, voluntary step — the moment an animal that has every biological reason to keep running decides, instead, to close the distance itself — is the actual turning point, and it happens in near silence, which is exactly why it never gets the attention it deserves in how we talk about these stories. I think that's actually the most important thing I can tell you about all of this. The transformation everyone loves to watch doesn't start with the dramatic rescue. It starts with an almost invisible decision, made entirely by the animal, in a moment so quiet you could miss it if you weren't paying attention. Which, maybe, is the whole reason to actually pay attention. — There's a specific kind of after-photo that circulates constantly — the glossy, healthy, groomed, collar-wearing "after" that gets paired with the gaunt, matted, terrified "before." And I understand why that pairing is compelling. It's the entire emotional arc compressed into two frames. But I think that format quietly does something a little dishonest, even with good intentions. It suggests the transformation is a before-and-after event, like a renovation. It wasn't. It was hundreds of small, unglamorous, repetitive moments — feeding at the same time every day so the animal learns to expect it, sitting on the floor at the dog's level instead of looming over it, letting it approach a hand instead of reaching for it, ignoring the flinching instead of reacting to it, doing all of that again the next day, and the day after that, for weeks, with no guarantee it was working, until one day it just obviously was. The "after" photo isn't a finish line. It's a snapshot taken somewhere in the middle of an ongoing relationship that the animal is still, in its own way, negotiating and renegotiating for the rest of its life. Trust, once broken that badly, doesn't fully heal into "as if it never happened." It heals into something more like a scar — strong, functional, permanently part of the shape of the thing, but never quite erased. That's not a sad ending. If anything it's a more honest, more impressive one. It means every calm moment afterward is a choice being made, over and over, by an animal that has every historical reason not to make it. — If you've made it this far, here's the actual reason I'm telling you all of this instead of just posting the clip with a caption and letting the algorithm do the rest. I think we've gotten too good at consuming this kind of story passively. We watch it, we feel something for eleven seconds, we hit like, we move on, and none of it changes anything about how we actually behave the next time we're standing on a sidewalk and something scared and hungry looks at us and then looks away, expecting nothing. I don't think the point of a story like this is to make you feel something and then forget it by the time you finish your coffee. I think the point is to recalibrate, even slightly, what you think is possible when patience is applied to something that fear has convinced everyone else is a lost cause. That recalibration is useful for a lot more than just how you think about stray animals. Every single one of us is, in some corner of our life, the person crouched on the sidewalk trying to close a gap of trust that has every logical reason to stay open. A relationship you damaged. A kid who's stopped opening up to you. A version of yourself you burned bridges with years ago and have been too proud to approach directly. The mechanics are eerily similar. Fear that's earned doesn't dissolve because you want it to. It dissolves because someone — sometimes you — shows up consistently enough, calmly enough, for long enough, that the old threat model finally stops matching the new evidence. That's not a metaphor I'm forcing onto this for effect. It's just what the footage actually demonstrates, if you watch it as data instead of just content. — So here's what I'd ask of you, genuinely, before you scroll past this the way you've scrolled past a thousand things exactly like it. Watch the clip. Not with the sound off while you read something else. Actually watch it, start to finish, and pay attention to the parts that aren't dramatic — the stillness, the waiting, the small, almost boring moments that are doing all the actual work while nothing "happens" on screen. That's where the real story lives. The dramatic bits are just the punctuation. And then, if it moves you even slightly, do something with that feeling that outlasts the eleven seconds it took to feel it. You don't need to adopt a street animal tomorrow to make this mean something. You need to remember, the next time you see something scared and alone and easy to walk past, that the gap between "someone should really help that" and actually helping is smaller than it feels, and almost always just requires you to be willing to stop moving for slightly longer than is convenient. That's it. That's the whole ask. Stop moving for slightly longer than is convenient. It's a small thing to ask. It's also, apparently, one of the rarest things a person can offer another living creature. Which is exactly why, when someone actually does it, and you get to watch what happens next, it's impossible to look away. Go watch it. Then watch it again, and pay attention to the part you skipped the first time — the quiet part, right before everything changes, where absolutely nothing looks like it's happening at all. That's the part that actually matters. — One more thing, because I think it gets lost in almost every conversation about rescue stories, and it's the thing that actually kept me thinking about this for days afterward instead of scrolling past it the way I scroll past everything else. We talk about these stories like the animal is the only one being changed. Like the human just shows up, does a kind thing, and walks away unaffected, and the dog is the one who gets transformed. That's not actually how it works, and I think pretending otherwise is why so many of us watch these clips and feel moved but never actually go do anything about it ourselves. The truth is that closing that gap changes the person just as much as it changes the animal. You cannot spend weeks reading fear correctly, adjusting your own behavior in tiny increments to avoid triggering it, slowing yourself down to a pace that has nothing to do with your own schedule and everything to do with someone else's nervous system, without that reshaping something in you too. Patience like that isn't a personality trait some people are born with and others aren't. It's a muscle. And the only way to build it is by using it on something that can't explain itself to you in words, that can only tell you whether you're getting it right through body language you have to actually learn to read. That's a skill almost nobody practices anymore, because almost nothing in modern life rewards it. Everything is built for speed. Instant replies. Instant gratification. Instant resolution. And then, every so often, life hands you something that flatly refuses to move at your pace — a scared animal, a grieving friend, a kid mid-tantrum, a relationship that's been quietly damaged for years — and you realize how out of practice you are at simply waiting, without forcing, without rushing, without needing the outcome right now. I think that's part of why these stories keep circulating no matter how many times we've already seen a version of them. They're not just heartwarming. They're a rehearsal. A low-stakes, safe way to practice believing that slow, patient, undramatic effort actually produces results — because we don't get a lot of other places in modern life where that belief gets reinforced so clearly, so visibly, in under a minute of footage. — I also want to be honest about something that's easy to gloss over in a post like this: not everyone who watches a rescue story is capable, right now, of doing a rescue themselves. Maybe your building doesn't allow pets. Maybe your finances are already stretched thin. Maybe you're barely holding your own life together and the idea of taking on a scared, possibly sick animal that needs weeks of specialized patience feels like one more thing you cannot carry right now. That's fine. That's real. I'm not writing any of this to guilt anyone into a life decision they're not equipped for. There are other ways this matters that have nothing to do with bringing an animal home. Local shelters almost always need supplies before they need adopters — blankets, food, basic vet supplies that add up fast and rarely get donated. Fostering exists specifically for people who can offer weeks instead of years. Sharing accurate information about a specific rescue organization does more good than most people assume, because visibility is often the actual bottleneck, not willingness. And sometimes the most useful thing you can do is exactly what you're doing right now — actually watching, actually absorbing what these situations really require, instead of consuming them as disposable content and moving on within four seconds. None of that is as satisfying as the image of scooping up a shaking animal off the street and changing its whole life in one dramatic gesture. But most of what actually saves these animals isn't dramatic. It's unglamorous, repetitive, and quiet — supplies restocked, fosters who show up on a Tuesday for no audience at all, donations that never get filmed. The stories that go viral are the visible tip of an enormous amount of invisible, unphotographed effort that never gets a single like. — I'll say one last thing and then I'll actually let you go watch this instead of reading about it. Every single time one of these stories works — every time an animal that had every reason to give up on humans decides, on its own timeline, to trust one anyway — it's proof of something that's easy to stop believing in as you get older. That gentleness is not weakness. That patience is not naivety. That showing up consistently, with no guarantee it'll work, is still worth doing, because sometimes, not always, but sometimes, it's the only thing that ever does. I don't think that's a small thing to be reminded of. I think it might be the actual reason none of us can look away from these, no matter how many times we've seen the shape of this story before. So go watch it. You already know why. — And if you're the kind of person who's already scrolled to the bottom of a post this long about a stray dog you haven't even seen yet, I already know something about you. You're not here for the aesthetics. You're not here because a thumbnail looked cute. You're here because some part of you is still keeping score on whether the world is capable of gentleness, and you're collecting evidence one clip at a time, whether you'd admit that out loud or not. That's not naive. That's not soft. That's actually one of the more disciplined things a person can do — refusing to let cynicism become the default setting, refusing to accept "that's just how it is" as a permanent verdict on anything, animal or otherwise. Every time you watch one of these all the way through instead of scrolling past, you're casting a small, private vote for the idea that patience still works, that broken trust is repairable, that showing up matters even when nobody's filming the part where it's boring. Keep collecting that evidence. The world runs short on it more often than it should. Watch the video. Then go be the person who stops. Not because it'll trend. Not because anyone's watching whether you do it or not. But because somewhere between the sidewalk and the years that come after, that one decision to stop moving is the entire difference between a life that ends unnoticed and a life that gets to start over. Most of the time nobody claps when it happens. Nobody films the ordinary Tuesday afterward. It just quietly becomes true, and stays true, for the rest of that animal's life — because one person, once, decided that inconvenience was a price worth paying. That's the whole story, really, dressed up in whatever specific details this particular video happens to show you. Go see them for yourself.

Earth Unveiled

26,120 görüntüleme • 16 gün önce